No Evidence of Harassment, No Injury, No Instigation—Acquittal in Suicide Case Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal in IPC 306 Case

Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof—Where Death Could Be Accidental and Motive is Absent, Conviction Is Unwarranted: gv  Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of seven accused in a dowry-related suicide case, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The appeal by the State challenging the 2007 judgment of the Sessions Court, Veraval, was dismissed by Justice S.V. Pinto, who found the trial court’s reasoning sound, evidence contradictory, and legal thresholds unmet.

The Court made it clear: “There is no iota of evidence that the deceased was subjected to any kind of mental or physical harassment… or that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.”

“Married 8 Years, Mother of 3 Girls—Found Dead in Well, No Injuries, No Proven Harassment”
The deceased, Leelaben, had been married to accused no. 1 for eight years. On April 5, 2006, she went missing. Ten days later, her body was found in a well at Chitravad. A missing person report was filed, and later, after the body was discovered, the brother of the deceased filed a complaint on May 1, 2006, alleging harassment for dowry and murder by her husband and in-laws.

But the High Court found the allegations unsubstantiated: “The post-mortem report found no external injuries. The body was in a decomposed state. Cause of death was declared as drowning.”

The medical officer admitted during cross-examination that “if a person accidentally falls into a well, the same type of death would occur.”

“Delayed Complaint, Contradictory Testimonies, No Evidence of Recent Quarrel—Prosecution’s Case Collapses”
The Court closely examined the credibility of the complainant witnesses, including the deceased’s mother, brothers, and sister-in-law. While they alleged past harassment, no complaint was ever filed during Leelaben’s lifetime, not even during the 26 days between her disappearance and formal complaint.

Justice Pinto noted: “There is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint. No contemporaneous evidence of cruelty or harassment exists. Statements recorded during initial inquiries into the missing report and accidental death revealed no indication of foul play.”

Witnesses also admitted that Leelaben was happily attending a wedding shortly before the incident, and that she and her husband lived separately from other accused relatives, diminishing the prosecution's claim of collective harassment.

“To Convict Under Section 306 IPC, There Must Be Instigation or Active Abetment—None Proven”
The Court revisited the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mahendra Awase v. State of MP (2025), Amalendu Pal, and Swamy Prahaladdas. It reiterated: “Merely alleging harassment is not enough. There must be a proximate, direct or indirect act of incitement to suicide.”

The judgment emphasized: “In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused by their acts or omission created circumstances that left the deceased with no choice but to commit suicide.”

“Acquittal Carries a Double Presumption of Innocence—Appeals Must Show Perverse Findings, Not Merely Alternate Views”
Upholding the trial court’s order, the High Court applied the well-settled law from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Kallu v. State of M.P., reiterating: “Where the trial court's view is plausible and based on evidence, the High Court will not interfere merely because a different conclusion is possible.”

It was observed: “The trial court thoroughly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and extended benefit of doubt. This view is fair, legal and proper. There is no perversity.”

Acquittal Confirmed, Appeal Dismissed
The High Court held: “The appeal is devoid of merit and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2007 in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2006 is hereby confirmed.”

The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled, and records were ordered to be returned to the trial court.

In reaffirming that criminal conviction cannot rest on moral suspicion or delay-ridden allegations, the Gujarat High Court has underscored the importance of timely, corroborative, and credible evidence in suicide-related prosecutions. The judgment is a critical reminder that Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked loosely, especially in family disputes where death could be accidental and the chain of causation is absent.

As the Court rightly held: “In criminal law, assumptions are not proof—delay is not evidence—and silence during life cannot become a voice after death.”

Date of Decision: 11 March 2025