Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Hiteshbhai Natubhai Rao & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2012
Decided On : 15-04-2026
For the Appellant : Mr Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, APP
For the Respondents: Mr Amrish S. Barot, Mr Pawan A. Barot
Conviction under the relevant penal provision for abetment of suicide requires evidence of a positive, proximate act of incitement or active facilitation. Allegations of harassment without a direct, live nexus to the decision to end one's life are insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 498A and 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Suicide - Abetment - Essential ingredients of abetment comprise active instigation or intentional aid - Mere domestic disputes or general allegations of harassment, without positive acts proximate to the incident, do not constitute abetment - Dying declaration indicating accidental ingestion of toxin gains substantial relevance - Prosecution failing to prove motive or direct nexus between conduct of accused and actions of deceased necessitates acquittal. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 9.1-9.7, 10.1-10.4)
(B) Appeal - Acquittal - Power of appellate court in reviewing acquittal is extensive but circumscribed by double presumption of innocence - Where trial court provides plausible reasoning and findings are not perverse, interference is unwarranted - Order of acquittal should not be reversed merely because a different view is plausible. (Paras 13, 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to incessant mental and physical harassment as well as financial demands made by her matrimonial relatives. The case rested on the testimonies of family members and a dying declaration. The evidence indicated the deceased died following the ingestion of a poisonous substance.
Findings of Court:
The court observed significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the nature and frequency of the alleged harassment. Furthermore, the dying declaration suggested the deceased had consumed the poison by mistake while attempting to take medication. There was no evidence of active instigation or a proximate act by the accused that directly led to the suicide.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established the ingredients of abetment to suicide and whether there were valid grounds to interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of an active role, direct incitement, or a proximate act that leaves the deceased with no choice but to end their life, coupled with clear mens rea. In the absence of such evidence, and given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the court upheld the acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of facts, procedural history, and trial court's acquittal decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of state's grounds for appeal and respondent's arguments for acquittal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. critical evaluation of evidentiary contradictions and failure to prove prosecution claims. (Para 8) |
| 4. defining the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under section 306 ipc, requiring active incitement and proximity. (Para 10) |
| 5. appellate scope for interference with acquittals and final order of dismissal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.05.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.166 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) 306 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”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the deceased was married to accused No.1 and was residing at her matrimonial home along with the other accused. It is alleged that after the marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment on account of domestic issues and monetary demands. On several occasions, she had gone to her parental home and narrated the alleged harassment to her family members. Subsequently, she returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, it came to the notice of her family that she had consumed a poisonous substance and was first taken for treatment to a hospital at Nadiad and thereafter shifted to a hospital at Ahmedabad, where she remained under treatment. During the course of treatment, she passed away. Thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged and investigation was set into motion.
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.166 of 2010. 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 15 witnesses and also produced 16 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidence
| Sr. No. | Name of Witness | Exhibit No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ravjibhai Chhotabhai Barot (Complainant – father of the deceased) | 13 |
| 2 | Sharmishthaben alias Niruben Ravjibhai Barot (Mother of the deceased) | 14 |
| 3 | Amit Ravjibhai Barot (Brother of the deceased) | 15 |
| 4 | Ayubkhan Mehubkhan Pathan (Neighbour of the complainant) | 16 |
| 5 | Siraj Sattarbhai Vora (Neighbour of the complainant) | 17 |
| 6 | Hitesh Hargovindbhai Barot (Distant relative of the complainant) | 18 |
| 7 | Kartik Chandrakantbhai Shah (Executive Magistrate – recorded dying declaration) | 20 |
| 8 | Rameshbhai Bijalbhai Makwana (Head Constable) | 23 |
| 9 | Ajitsinh Kishorsinh Vaghela (Investigating Officer) | 25 |
| 10 | Dr. Harjitsinh Sohansingh Dumra (Treating Doctor) | 27 |
| 11 | Dr. Jignesh Namdevbhai Purohit (Treating Doctor) | 29 |
| 12 | Dr. Digvijay Ranchhodbhai Vaghela (Post-mortem Doctor) | 31 |
| 13 | Head Constable Chhaganbhai Micharabhai Gamit (Officer who registered the offence) | 35 |
| 14 | PSI Zaheerhusen Gulamrasul Malek (Investigating Officer) | 39 |
| 15 | PSI Bhagwanbhai Khengarbhai Rabari (Investigating Officer) | 46 |
Documentary Evidence
| Sr. No. | Details of Document | Exhibit No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Original Complaint | 14 |
| 2 | Panchnama of the scene of offence | 9 |
| 3 | Inquest Panchnama | 10 |
| 4 | Dying Declaration | 11 |
| 5 | Medical Certificate of treatment at Mahagujarat Hospital | 22 |
| 6 | Medical Certificate of treatment at Sterling Hospital | 30 |
| 7 | Post-mortem Form | 29 |
| 8 | Post-mortem Report | 26 |
| 9 | Cause of Death Certificate | 32 |
| 10 | Receipt of handing over the dead body | 33 |
| 11 | FSL Mobile Van Report | 40 |
| 12 | Lette | |
