Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1911 of 2010
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1911 of 2010
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHUPATBHAI NAGINBHAI BARAIYA & ORS.
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4
MR TULSHI R SAVANI(3070) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5,6
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Reserved On : 10/03/2026
Pronounced On : 25/03/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shruti Pathak
For the Respondents: Tulshi R Savani, Bhavika H Kotecha
Conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of active instigation, clear mens rea, and a proximate causal link between the accused's conduct and the suicide. Mere domestic disputes, suspicion, or mental stress caused by routine disagreements do not satisfy the legal threshold for culpability.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 - Appeal against acquittal - Allegation of abetment of suicide - Suicide committed due to alleged mental harassment related to domestic issues - Trial court acquitted accused finding prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Appellate court affirmed finding no illegality or perversity - Mere domestic disagreements or suspicion do not constitute abetment. (Paras 1, 9.1, 9.5, 12, 19)
(B) Abetment - Essential ingredients - Section 107 of IPC - Requires active involvement, instigation, or intentional aiding - Must be clear mens rea and proximate causal link between conduct of accused and commission of suicide - Routine harassment, insults, or domestic disputes without direct nexus do not amount to abetment. (Paras 9.4, 9.6, 9.7)
(C) Appeal against acquittal - Powers of Appellate Court - Court not to re-write judgment if reasons are plausible and just - Interference warranted only if findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence - Double presumption of innocence in favor of accused. (Paras 13, 15, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant state challenged the acquittal order of the trial court regarding charges of abetment of suicide. The deceased had alleged that the accused persons had harassed him due to illicit relationships, leading to his suicide. However, the prosecution evidence, including multiple dying declarations, was marked by significant contradictions regarding the specific roles and actions of the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of any positive act or immediate incitement by the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The contradictions in the dying declarations and the absence of a proved proximate cause led the court to conclude that the foundational elements of abetment remained unproven, as no clear motive or active encouragement was established.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the conduct of the accused constituted active "instigation" or "abetment" of suicide and whether the trial court's acquittal order required interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that abetment of suicide requires proof of an active and proximate act of instigation or intentional facilitation. Mere domestic discord or suspicion, without direct evidence of a deliberate intention or a proximate nexus to the fatal act, fails to meet the statutory threshold of culpability.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.08.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No.171 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506(2) 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”). By an order dated 20.01.2026, the present appeal has abated qua respondent nos.1 and 4, in view of the fact that respondent no.1 had expired on 08.01.2017 and respondent no.4 had expired on 03.06.2022. The appeal is heard qua respondent nos.2, 3, 5 and 6.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the accused No. 2, Jaguben, is the wife of the complainant in this case. On 20.02.2007 at around 07:00 p.m., when the complainant and his wife (accused No. 2) were at their house, the complainant reprimanded accused No. 2 because she was maintaining an illicit relationship with accused No. 1. Upon being reprimanded, accused No. 2 started speaking abusively and stated that she wished to continue her illicit relationship with accused No. 1. It is further alleged that earlier also accused Nos. 1 and 2 had frequently abused the complainant regarding this issue, harassed him, and threatened to kill him. Accused No. 2 had also repeatedly filed false complaints against the complainant at Ghogha Police Station in order to harass him. Being fed up with the above-stated mental harassment caused by the accused, the complainant poured kerosene on his body and set himself on fire. The complainant’s brother, sister-in-law, and maternal aunt took him to the hospital. While in a fully conscious state, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused, in collusion with each other, subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty and instigated him to commit suicide, thereby abetting the commission of suicide, therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.
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.171 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 7 witnesses and also produced 22 documentary 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 be
