Conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of an active, proximate act of incitement or conduct creating circumstances that leave the victim with no alternative but to commit suicide. Routine domestic harassment without a direct causal link is insufficient, and appellate courts will not overturn acquittals absent perversity.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.05.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutchh, in Sessions Case No.51 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A), 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”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant Kunvarben, alleged that her daughter Rekha, was married to accused No.1 Kanji Narshi Jatvadiya, about three years prior to the incident and was living in a joint family with the accused persons. Rekha had a two-year-old child. According to the complaint, the accused persons subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for dowry and demanded money from her parental home. On 04.07.2011, the complainant received information that Rekha had committed suicide by strangulation and was taken to Lakadiya Government Hospital, where injury marks were noticed on her neck. Alleging that continuous harassment by the accused led Rekha to commit suicide, the complainant lodged a complaint on 07.07.2011 at Lakadiya Police Station for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC.

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.51 of 2011. 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 24 documentary and oral evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

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 appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by apprecia