The appellate court emphasized that to convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or direct involvement in facilitating suicide is essential; mere allegations are inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 75/2007 on 19.01.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 , 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of IPC.

1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 1 - Chandrakantbhai Rungnathbhai Chatvani had expired on 31.12.2017 and the respondent no. 2 – Ranjanben Chandrakantbhai Chatvani expired on 17.02.2017. The appeal qua the respondent no. 1 and 2 was abated by an order of this Court dated 03.03.2025.

1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 The accused nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Komalben, the accused no. 3 is the husband and the accused nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters- in-law of deceased Komalben who was married to the accused no. 3 about 11 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock Komalben and the accused no. 3 - Ketanbhai had two daughters namely Disha and Princey and ten days prior to 06.04.2007, Komalben had come to her brothers house with the younger daughter - Princey. On 06.04.2007 at around 00.45 hours Komalben sprinkled kerosene on herself at her brother‘s house and set herself ablaze. She was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and she filed a complaint under sections 498A, 323, 114 of the IPC, which was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station I C.R. No. 112/2007. The said Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai Chatvani expired during treatment and Section 306 of IPC was added in the FIR.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 75/2007.

2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 22 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 23 to 27, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused