Kerosene on the Floor, Matches by the Stove — That’s an Accident, Not a Murder Plot: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in Woman’s Death

18 April 2025 5:10 PM

By: Deepak Kumar

“Suspicion Is Not Proof, Grief Is Not Evidence — You Can’t Convict Without Incitement or Mens Rea”, - Delivering a strongly reasoned judgment Gujarat High Court confirmed the acquittal of a man and his parents in a case of alleged abetment of suicide. The Court, speaking through Justice S.V. Pinto, held that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence to show instigation, cruelty, or even presence of the accused at the time of the incident, and that the trial court had rightly found the death to be accidental, not criminal.
“There is no iota of evidence that any of the accused were present at home at the time of the incident,” the Court noted, while adding that “as there is no evidence of any aiding, abetting, goading or inciting the deceased to commit suicide, the learned Trial Court rightly extended benefit of doubt.”
“Where Is the Cruelty, and Where Is the Link?” — Court Says Harassment Must Be More Than Vague Allegations
The prosecution alleged that Nathiben @ Jiguben, the wife of accused Devsinh, was harassed to the point of suicide and set herself ablaze. But the Court found that the narrative collapsed under scrutiny. Witnesses gave inconsistent or hearsay accounts, and the deceased’s own mother admitted that the marriage had taken place happily and that her daughter had never made a direct complaint of torture.
“The mother of the deceased turned hostile during cross-examination. She admitted her daughter was sent to her matrimonial home willingly and peacefully. Her testimony carries contradictions and improvements,” the Court observed.
It found that the broad, general allegations of cruelty — without reference to time, place, or specific acts — could not sustain a conviction under Section 498A, let alone a charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC.
“Kerosene, Matches, and an Open Stove — The Scene Speaks of Accident, Not Conspiracy”
A crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning was the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which indicated the presence of a primus stove, kerosene spread across the kitchen, and burnt matchsticks, along with an open kerosene tin.
“These facts suggest accidental ignition while refilling the stove, a sadly common cause of kitchen burns in rural households,” the Court remarked. It pointed out that the layout of the scene was more consistent with an accidental fire during cooking, not with any planned or induced act of suicide.
The panchnama corroborated that the accused were not at home when the incident occurred, and there was no suicide note, no prior threats, and no signs of domestic conflict immediately preceding the death.
“You Can’t Convict Without Mens Rea — Mere Tragedy Is Not a Crime”
Citing multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Amalendu Pal, Swamy Prahaladdas, Mahendra Singh, and M. Mohan, the High Court emphasized that abetment to suicide requires a demonstrable mental element — a willful act intended to push the deceased toward suicide.
“To constitute abetment, there must be active aiding or instigation. Mere domestic friction, common in matrimonial life, cannot be elevated to criminal abetment,” the Court reiterated.
It stressed that Section 306 IPC is not meant to punish people for simply being family members, and unless the prosecution clearly shows a direct link between the accused's conduct and the suicide, conviction is legally untenable.
“Presumption of Innocence Is Stronger After Acquittal — Appellate Court Must Be Slow to Interfere”
The Court concluded by affirming the trial court’s acquittal, noting that its findings were well-reasoned, based on material evidence, and in line with settled law. “Once a trial court has acquitted the accused, the presumption of innocence becomes fortified,” the Court observed.
“Two views are possible — one leading to guilt and the other to innocence. When the latter is reasonably possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”
It dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat, calling it “devoid of merit” and reiterating that criminal law cannot be used to assign blame where evidence fails to establish guilt.