Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J.Thaker, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bharvad Cheharabhai Rajabhai & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 2661 of 2008
Decided On : 08-04-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, APP
Conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of direct, proximate instigation or intentional facilitation. Domestic discord and general harassment, lacking an immediate causal link to the suicide, are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of mens rea and do not establish the necessary threshold for criminal liability.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 201 and 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Abetment of suicide - Appeal against acquittal - Necessity of active instigation and proximate conduct - Prosecution must establish clear nexus between conduct of accused and act of suicide - Mere domestic disagreements or accusations of harassment without proof of direct, intentional incitement or facilitation do not constitute abetment - Essential to show culpable mental state and clear causal link proximate to time of occurrence. (Paras 9.1 - 9.7, 10.1 - 10.4)
(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the reasoning of the lower court is perverse, based on a misreading of material evidence, or exhibits patent illegality - Where the trial court’s view is reasonable and plausible, the appellate court must refrain from substituting its own opinion, respecting the reinforced presumption of innocence. (Paras 13, 15, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was discovered hanging in a shed. Allegations were raised that the accused individuals were involved in an illicit relationship and had driven the deceased to suicide through intimidation and verbal conflict. Prosecution witnesses, including a relative who claimed to have seen the body, provided testimony regarding the events leading up to the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient to satisfy the requirements for abetment.
Findings of Court:
Evidence on record lacked proof of a direct, proximate act of instigation. There was no demonstration of a clear motive or a specific action by the accused that left the deceased with no choice but to take the extreme step. Acts performed by the accused, such as moving the body down from the ligature, were determined to be attempts to provide aid rather than actions to destroy evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently proved the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide and whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for abetment of suicide requires a demonstration of a direct and immediate link between the accused's conduct and the victim's decision to commit suicide. Without evidence of a positive, proximate act of instigation or intentional facilitation, the statutory threshold is not met. Appellate courts must uphold an acquittal if the lower court's analysis is supported by plausible evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev J.Thaker, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Patan, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2007, for the offences under Sections 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). The present appeal is abated qua respondent no.3 and it is heard qua respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant, Amaratbhai Shankarbhai Thakor, had gone to Radhanpur for labour work on 29.12.2006 and stayed there overnight. The next morning, upon being informed to return home urgently, he found his brother Merambhai dead. On inquiry, he learned that the accused had allegedly murdered his brother and staged it as a hanging. It was further revealed that the deceased’s wife was having an illicit relationship with the main accused. Based on this, an offence was registered on 30.12.2006 at Varahi Police Station under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.81 of 2007. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and also produced 22 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
| Details | Exhibit |
|---|---|
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 1 – Amaratbhai Shankarbhai Thakor (Complainant). | 15 |
| Original Complaint. | 16 |
| Panchnama of the place of occurrence | 16 |
| Inquest Panchnama of the dead body | 17 |
| Panchnama of the scene of offence | 18 |
| Panchnama of seizure of clothes from the dead body | 19 |
| Panchnama regarding the physical condition of the accused | 20 to 22 |
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 2 – Thakor Jemalbhai Shankarbhai (Witness) | 24 |
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No.3 – Sagarbhai Merambhai (Witness) | 26 |
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 4 – Dr. Paresh Kanaiyalal Kadiya | 27 |
| Yadi (requisition) made to the Medical Officer | 28 |
| Post-mortem note of the dead body | 29 |
| Certificate showing cause of death | 30 |
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 5 – Manish Bhagwanji Nakum (Investigating Officer) | 31 |
| Report for registration of offence | 32 |
| Deputy order | 33 |
| Yadi addressed to the Executive Magistrate | 34 |
| Yadi for conducting inquest | 35 |
| Post-mortem form | 36 |
| Receipt of handing over the dead body | 37 |
| Receipt regarding articles (muddamal) received | 38 |
| Preliminary report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) | 39 |
| Report for addition of sections | 40 |
| Yadi made to the Medical Officer | 41 |
| Dispatch entry of FSL | 42 |
| Forwarding letter for sending muddamal to FSL | 43 |
| FSL Report | 44 |
| Deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 6 – Raghuvarsinh Mahavirsinh Bhadoriya (Investigating Officer). | 45 |
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions
