The conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of specific acts of instigation or cruelty that are temporally proximate to the suicide, failing which the accused are entitled to acquittal.

35. In Gurbachan v. Satpal , (1990) 1 SCC 445, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[4]. …Criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. While civil case may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. See Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1942 AC 1, Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 AC 462. It is true even today as much as it was before. There must not be any 'reasonable doubt' about the guilt of the accused in respect of the particular offence charged. The courts must strictly be satisfied that no innocent person, innocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which is charged, is convicted, even at the risk of letting off some guilty persons. Even after the introduction of S. 498A of the I.P.C. and S. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act , the proof must be beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. See the observations of Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, (1950) 2 All ER 458 at p. 459, but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.

[5]. The conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated.

36. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994)1 SCC 73, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[15]. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act . Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, (1950)2 All ER 458 (All ER at p. 459) has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter.

37. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001)9 SCC 618, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[12]. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available