JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. Since the aforesaid criminal appeal and acquittal appeal arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 82/2013 and ACQ No. 159/2014 are directed against the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2012 passed by learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.106/2010 whereby, appellant in CRA No.82/2013 has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation, and respondents No. 3 to 5 in ACQ No. 159/2014 have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC. 3. In the present case, on 17.04.2003, marriage of accused/appellant – Hari Singh in CRA No.82/2013 was solemnized with Geeta Devi Singh (since deceased). The acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in ACQ A. No. 159/2014 are brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that at the time of marriage, pursuant to the demands of the accused persons, the family members of the deceased had given a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with gold ornaments such as a maangtika, nose ring, necklace, jhumka, chain with earrings, ring, tops, bangles, etc as dowry. However, about 15 days after the marriage, all the accused persons started harassing and assaulting the deceased for bringing more dowry. When the deceased informed her family members of this harassment over the telephone, her elder sister Sangeeta Mani and her mother Sulochana Devi Pawar advised her that the marriage was recent and that things would settle in due course. In October 2009, accused Hari Singh left the deceased at her mother’s house in Delhi telling her to obtain Rs.50,000 from her brother and to come to Bhilai only after arranging the money. In order to ensure the happiness of the deceased, her family members arranged the said amount and sent her back to her matrimonial home. On 22.12.2009, the deceased’s mother, Smt. Sulochana Devi Pawar, talked to accused Hari Singh regarding the assault upon her daughter, upon which, accused Hari Singh tender apology and assured her that such conduct would not be repeated. Thereafter, on 31.12.2009 at about 9:00 a.m., accused Hari Singh informed over telephone that the deceased Geeta Devi had committed suicide. On 22.12.2009, the deceased’s mother, Smt. Sulochana Devi Pawar, talked to accused Hari Singh regarding the assault upon her daughter, upon which, accused Hari Singh tender apology and assured her that such conduct would not be repeated. Thereafter, on 31.12.2009 at about 9:00 a.m., accused Hari Singh informed over telephone that the deceased Geeta Devi had committed suicide. The family members of the deceased immediately left New Delhi by road for Bhilai and reached there on 02.01.2010. When they saw the body of the deceased in the Durg mortuary, they noticed 3–4 injury marks on her body. Meanwhile, upon information provided by Hemant Sahu, Head Constable who was also neighbour of accused Hari Singh, a merg No. 109 dated 31.12.2009 was registered at Smritinagar Police Outpost as per Ex.P-5, and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C was commenced. The Executive Magistrate, Durg, Shri B.K. Verma served notices (Ex.P-1) upon six persons including the deceased’s husband/accused No.1 Hari Singh for inquest proceedings, thereafter, the inquest was prepared on the body of deceased vide Ex.P-2. During inquest, it was found that the door of Quarter No. E-7 was open. The body of the deceased was lying on the bed and was identified by the persons present. A ligature mark was found on her neck and a white dupatta with two knots was also found tied around her neck. Both legs were bent near the knees. On the showcase of the bed, a diary titled “Pretty Girl” was recovered, on which “Geeta Pawar Life Story After Marriage.” was written. A Samsung mobile phone was found kept on charging nearby. A white-coloured thread was found hanging from the ceiling fan. The distance from the ceiling to the fan was 1 ft. 4 inches, from the fan to the bed 6 ft. 5½ inches, and the height of the bed from the floor approximately 1 ft. 4 inches. Since, the parents of deceased were on the way, the post-mortem of deceased was performed after their arrival. Head Constable Shashikant Dubey seized the said diary from the spot under seizure memo Ex.P-3. The mobile phone and the thread from the fan were also seized. On 02.01.2010, after the arrival of the deceased’s relatives, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at the District Hospital, Durg, vide Ex.P-5, which recorded the cause of death as suicide by hanging. Meanwhile, Head Constable Shashikant prepared the site map vide Ex.P-26. The mobile phone and the thread from the fan were also seized. On 02.01.2010, after the arrival of the deceased’s relatives, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at the District Hospital, Durg, vide Ex.P-5, which recorded the cause of death as suicide by hanging. Meanwhile, Head Constable Shashikant prepared the site map vide Ex.P-26. The body was thereafter handed over to the relatives. After the Marg enquiry, on 08.01.2010, the Police Station - Supela registered a zero FIR under Sections 304-B/34 IPC against all five accused persons and the matter was investigated. 5. On 08.01.2010, deceased’s mother, Smt. Sulochana Pawar (PW-6) filed a written complaint (Ex.P-20) in police station Smriti Nagar alleging therein that the accused persons had harassed and killed the deceased for dowry. On the same day, in the presence of the deceased’s brother Manmohan (PW-9) and sister Sangeeta Mani (PW-7), the panchanama of the deceased’s diary was prepared vide Ex.P-23. Accused Hari Singh was arrested on 08.01.2010, and intimation of arrest was sent to his relatives vide Ex.P-32. The other accused persons were arrested subsequently. On 08.01.2010, the statements of the deceased’s mother Sulochana, sister Sangeeta Mani, sister-in-law Parul, and brother Manmohan were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, wherein they stated that about 15 days after the marriage, the deceased had begun telephoning and informing them that the accused persons were harassing her saying she had brought insufficient dowry. 6. On 06.03.2010, Head Constable Chandrika Prasad seized five pages of the deceased’s handwriting from the residence of her mother, Smt. Sulochana Pawar, vide seizure memo Ex. P-22. Pages 1 to 9 contained material relating to a beautician course, marked as Exhibits P-11 to P-19. Panchanama Exhibit P-21 was prepared in this regard. On 19.03.2010, the Superintendent of Police, Durg, wrote a letter to the handwriting expert vide Ex.P-7, marking the deceased’s alleged suicidal diary entries as articles Q-1 to Q-29 and her natural handwriting as N-1 to N-10. Handwriting expert Ms. Manisha Dubey examined the writings and, in her report (Ex. P-8), opined that both sets of writings were authored by the same person. 7. After competing the usual investigation and upon finding evidence against the accused persons, a charge sheet under Section 304-B/34 IPC was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Handwriting expert Ms. Manisha Dubey examined the writings and, in her report (Ex. P-8), opined that both sets of writings were authored by the same person. 7. After competing the usual investigation and upon finding evidence against the accused persons, a charge sheet under Section 304-B/34 IPC was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. and charges were framed against the accused Hari Singh under Sections 304- B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC, against acquitted accused/respondent No.2-Satish Singh under Sections 304-B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC, against acquitted accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under Sections 304-B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302/34 of IPC by the trial Court. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 8. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Two defence witnesses namely Dr. Archana Chauhan (DW-1) and Ashok Kumar Sahu (DW-2) were also examined in the case. 9. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment, while acquitting the accused/appellant in CRA No.82/2013 from the offence under Sections 304-B, 302 of IPC, and accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in ACQ No. 159/2014 from the offence under Sections 304-B, 306 and 302 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant in CRA No.82/2013 as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 10. Acquittal Appeal No.159/2014 has been filed by the complainant (mother of the deceased) against acquittal of accused/appellant in CRA No.82/2013 from the offence under Section 304-B, 302 of IPC and for enhancement of sentence imposed against him under Section 306 of IPC, and acquittal of accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant in ACQ No.159/2014 submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Trial court convicting and sentencing accused/respondent No.2 for letter offence under Section 306 IPC and acquitting accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from the charges under Section 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC is bad in law and on facts and it is contrary to the evidence available on record, hence liable to be set aside and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from the charges under Section 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC is bad in law and on facts and it is contrary to the evidence available on record, hence liable to be set aside and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures as the evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charges under Section 304-B and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are trustworthy and reliable and they are legally sufficient to hold the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 guilty. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has completely succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts and adducing trustworthy and cogent evidence being capable of inspiring the confidence of the Court for bring home the charges against the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for committing the dowry death in alternate homicidal death of the deceased, despite this fact the learned Trial Court committed apparent error in passing the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that from the statement of Smt. Sulochna Pawar (Pw-6), Sangeeta Mani (PW-7), Parul (Pw- 8) and Manmohan Pawar (PW-9), it has been proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment and even soon before her death she was continuously ill treated by them and their testimonies were further supported by the postmortem report of the deceased, wherein the autopsy surgeon opined that the deceased was having marks of injuries on her body. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and accused/respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC in alternate 302 of IPC. 12. The accused/respondent No.2 in ACQ No.159/2014 and appellant in the criminal appeal submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He submits that he has filed an appeal (CRA No.82/2013) against his conviction under Section 306 of IPC. 13. 12. The accused/respondent No.2 in ACQ No.159/2014 and appellant in the criminal appeal submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He submits that he has filed an appeal (CRA No.82/2013) against his conviction under Section 306 of IPC. 13. The accused/respondent No. 3 to 5, so far as their acquittal from the charges levelled against them, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and submits that the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly acquitted them. So, the acquittal appeal being without any subject and merit is liable to be dismissed. 14. In CRA No.82/2013, learned Sr. counsel submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court is bad, perverse and against the law as well as facts of the case. In order to bring the case under Section 306 of IPC, the well established legal principle is the presence of clear mens rea for which the intention to abet the act of suicide is essential, mere harassment or cruelty by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetment. The prosecution has to demonstrate an active and direct action and a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute the act of abetment of suicide by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide but the same is completely missing in the case. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and only on this ground that the deceased committed suicide, convicted the appellant. This finding of the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. The marriage of the deceased with appellant was solemnized in the year 2003 and the deceased committed suicide in the year 2009 & none of the witnesses have stated that any previous report with regard to any harassment or instigation for committing suicide by the deceased was done by the appellant. The allegations in the case diary may amount to cruel treatment by the appellant but it would not come within the meaning of the word ‘instigation’ which is goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. 15. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. Vs. 15. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288 Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812, decisions of this Court in the matter of Shyam Lal Cherwa & Anr. Vs. State of C.G. [CRA No.692/2005, judgment dated 20.01.2025], Poonam Ram Bargah Vs. The State of C.G. [CRA No.47/2005, judgment dated 28.03.2025], Amrit Singh Vs. The State of C.G. [CRA No.152/2013, judgment dated 12.09.2025] , Mahendra Singh Vs. The State of C.G. [CRA No.361/2009, judgment dated 28.08.2025], Vishnu Prasad Kashyap Vs. State of C.G. [CRA No.168/2022, judgment dated 12.03.2025] and Nehru Patel & Anr. Vs. State of C.G. [CRA No.991/2003]. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned Trial court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant in CRA No.82/2013. So this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused Hari Singh under Sections 304-B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC, against acquitted accused/respondent No.2-Satish Singh under Sections 304-B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC, against acquitted accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under Sections 304-B, 306 and in alternate under Section 302/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court while acquitting co-accused persons from the charge under Sections 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC, convicted the accused/appellant in CRA No.82/2013 under Section 306 of IPC. 19. Before the learned Trial Court, it is not disputed that marriage of deceased Geeta Devi and accused/appellant Hari Singh was solemnized on 17.04.2003 and deceased died on 31.12.2009. 20. N.C. Rai (PW-4) is the autopsy surgeon who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-5 opinion the mode of death of deceased to be asphyxia and the cause of death was hanging. The autopsy surgeon in his query report (Ex.P-6), the doctor has answered that nature of death was suicidal. 21. 20. N.C. Rai (PW-4) is the autopsy surgeon who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-5 opinion the mode of death of deceased to be asphyxia and the cause of death was hanging. The autopsy surgeon in his query report (Ex.P-6), the doctor has answered that nature of death was suicidal. 21. From the evidence of doctor (PW-4), his postmortem report (Ex.P-5) and query report Ex.p-6, the nature of death has also not been disputed by the appellant and other co- accused persons. So, it has been found proved that the death of deceased was suicidal in nature, and the learned Trial Court also has rightly found that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 22. The learned Trial Court recorded the conviction of the appellant Hari Singh after having found that he abated his wife deceased Geeta Devi to commit suicide. 23. Since the appellant stands charged under Section 306 IPC, the central question is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Hari Singh abetted the suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, and the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting other co-accused persons from the charges under Section 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC. 24. To sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish (i) commission of suicide, and (ii) abetment thereof by the accused through instigation, intentional aiding, or active participation. Mere marital discord or ordinary wear and tear of domestic life cannot constitute abetment. There must be a proximate act of incitement, deliberate conduct, or cruelty so grave and continuous as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. 25. Narendra Verma (PW-1) is the Head Constable and the neighbour of the accused/appellant. He has stated that on 31.12.2009 at about 9.00 am, upon hearing the cries of accused/appellant Hari Singh, he went to his house and saw that his wife deceased Geeta Devi was hanging with ceiling fan. Thereafter, he immediately went to accused Satish Singh, brother of appellant Hari Singh, who was residing nearby the quarter to inform him about the incident and he immediately came to the house of accused/appellant Hari Singh where Hemant Sahu, neighbor had also come and before whom the dead body was taken down. Thereafter, he immediately went to accused Satish Singh, brother of appellant Hari Singh, who was residing nearby the quarter to inform him about the incident and he immediately came to the house of accused/appellant Hari Singh where Hemant Sahu, neighbor had also come and before whom the dead body was taken down. He has also stated that after some time, police of police station Supela and Nayab Tahsildar reached the spot, gave notice for inquest under Ex.P-1, on which he admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part. The inquest of dead body is Ex.P-2 and this witness admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part thereon. The police had also seized one diary (Ex.P-4) of deceased Geeta Devi vide seizure memo Ex.P-3 and he admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part in Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted this suggestion of defence that the deceased had not made any complaint of harassment or dowry. 26. Hemant Sahu (PW-3) has made almost similar statement as has been made by Narendra Verma (PW-1) that after hearing the cries of accused Hari Singh, he went to his house and saw deceased Geeta Devi hanging with ceiling fan. 27. Sulochana Pawar (PW-6) is the mother of deceased Geeta Devi. She has stated that the marriage of her daughter deceased Geeta Devi was solemnized on 17.04.2003 with accused Hari Singh and at the time of marriage, she gave golden ornaments including cash of Rs.1,50,000/-. She has also stated that after 15 days of marriage, her daughter started calling her on phone saying that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband and brother-in-law were harassing her for bringing less dowry. In the year 2009, accused Hari Singh had brought her daughter Geeta Devi to Delhi. Accused Hari Singh left deceased Geeta Devi in Delhi and returned to his duty. Before coming to Delhi, accused Hari Singh had told her daughter Geeta Devi to come to Chhattisgarh only with Rs.50,000/-. She has also stated that all the above matter was told to her by her daughter Geeta Devi. Thereafter, she (this witness) told her daughter Geeta Devi that she had arranged Rs.50,000/- and told her to call accused Hari Singh and go with him to her in-laws house. She has also stated that on 18.12.2009, her daughter informed accused Hari Singh over telephone, whereupon accused Hari Singh came to Delhi on 22.12.2009. Thereafter, she (this witness) told her daughter Geeta Devi that she had arranged Rs.50,000/- and told her to call accused Hari Singh and go with him to her in-laws house. She has also stated that on 18.12.2009, her daughter informed accused Hari Singh over telephone, whereupon accused Hari Singh came to Delhi on 22.12.2009. She had talked with Hari Singh and asked him as to why he assault her daughter then Hari Singh tendering apology assured her not to repeat such act again. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that the name of first wife of accused Hari Singh was Jyoti who was in coma and the name of her first child was Rahul. This witness has admitted this suggestion that after marriage, accused Hari Singh and her daughter Geeta Devi had gone to Dalhouji and Chamba. She has also admitted that they never complained before police about the harassment by the accused to her daughter. She has also admitted that her daughter never complained about the maarpeet or harassment of the accused. This witness has denied this suggestion that accused Hari Singh would get angry whenever her daughter Geeta Devi beat Rahul (child of first wife of accused Hari Singh). 28. Sangeeta Mani (PW-7) is the sister of deceased Geeta Devi. She has stated that all the accused persons used to harass/torture her sister. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that they had not convened any social meeting with regard to harassment or torture of the accused persons. This witness, in para 62, has stated that she never been Bhilai after marriage of her sister. She has no knowledge of accused Hari Singh’s posting in Jagdalpur. She has admitted that at the time of death of her sister Geeta Devi, there has been approximately 6 ½ years of their marriage and during this period her sister Geeta Devi visited Delhi several time. She has also admitted in para 64 of her cross-examination that from 2003 until the death of her sister Geeta Devi, they never filed any report with the police station regarding Geeta Devi’s harassment or torture. 29. Smt. Parul Pawar (PW-8) is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of deceased Geeta Singh. She has stated that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- and scooty. She has also admitted in para 64 of her cross-examination that from 2003 until the death of her sister Geeta Devi, they never filed any report with the police station regarding Geeta Devi’s harassment or torture. 29. Smt. Parul Pawar (PW-8) is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of deceased Geeta Singh. She has stated that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- and scooty. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that it was second marriage of accused Hari Singh with deceased Geeta Singh and first wife of accused Hari Singh had died. At the time of marriage, accused Hari Singh had one son from his first wife. This witness has also admitted that accused Hari Singh and deceased Geeta Devi stayed together for about 6 ½ years and they never complained police about the harassment or torture being meted out to Geeta Devi by the accused persons. 30. Manmohan Pawar (PW-9) is the brother of deceased. He has also made similar statement as has been made by PW- 8, and in cross-examination, this witness has admitted that deceased Geeta and his family members never made complaint against the accused persons before police about the harassment/torture. 31. The learned Trial Court recorded its finding that accused Hari Singh used to assault his wife deceased Geeta Devi and she was depressed due to the act of accused Hari Sing. The relevant portion of finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in para 59 is reproduced herein as under :- 32. Hon’ble Apex Court in the Patel (supra), held in para 18 to 25 and 40 to 45 as under :- “18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then 'instigation' may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'. 19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus Stale (Govt. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'. 19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus Stale (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment' as under: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal is a case where this Court held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in case of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana 21. After considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, this Court in Rajesh versus State of Haryana held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. 22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. 23. This Court in Amudha versus State 6 held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide. 24. Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka, this Court observed that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society. Commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC. 25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra is a case where this Court after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal position in the following manner : 14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 25.1 In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P. and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours between using of abusive language by the accused and the commission of suicide would not amount to a proximate act. 26. xxxx 27. xxx 40. 26. xxxx 27. xxx 40. This takes us to the suicide note (Ex. 33). We have already noted the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced which makes it highly suspect. Nonetheless, since it was exhibited, let us deal with the same. Sum and substance of the suicide note allegedly written by Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar (the deceased) with the date given as 24.04.2009 is that appellant No. 3 had joined his office following the illness of the existing cleaner. She used to come to the office daily for cleaning purposes. Slowly they developed intimacy. It is alleged that appellant No. 3 had performed 'black art' on the deceased so much so that, he fell in love with her. Taking advantage of the situation, she took photographs and video of them in compromising position. All the accused persons were shameless persons. As they started blackmailing him, he initially paid Rs. 80,000.00 to them and thereafter started giving them ornaments. He also gave them his passbook and cheque books after signing on the cheques. Because of such blackmailing, he had to misappropriate money from his office for which he was suspended. It is stated that he was totally ruined and, therefore, he had committed suicide as he had no other alternative. 41. The suicide note was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. The Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert of FSL, Gandhinagar opined that the handwriting was of the deceased. However, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as an expert witness. The records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert. 42. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), this Court observed that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. 43. In the case of Murari Lal versus State of M.P.1, this Court opined that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. 43. In the case of Murari Lal versus State of M.P.1, this Court opined that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. 44. This Court dealt with the effect of placing reliance on the opinion of handwriting expert without examining him in court in Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana . One of the questions which fell for consideration in that case was whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert. In this connection, this Court took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. In that case, it was found that there was nothing on record to show that the accused persons had admitted to the report of the handwriting expert. 45. Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.” 33. Further, in Abhinav (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 13 to 25 and 40 as under :- “13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh . We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh . Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." (underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis) 14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal , wherein it was held so: "If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh was a case of elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the boy, later acquitted on the girl's testimony in his favour. The boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. The boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. While upholding the conviction entered into by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of the words 'abetment' and 'instigate': "43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable, A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the selfesteem and self- respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact induced her to extinguish her life spark." Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised while also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village setting, also belonging to the poor strata of society, was threatened and teased constantly, resulting in her resort to the extreme step. The accused would have known that his acts would lead to the drastic consequence. 16. Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal also held: "Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 17. S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan emphasised the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. Looking at Section 306, it was held so : "... in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 18. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) spoke on the suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which were complex and multifaceted (sic). It was held that: "Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self- respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for selfprotection or an escapism from intolerable self." 19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat was a case in which the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he was still alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note in which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having driven him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner: "14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitemen t should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally alding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” 21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. 22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself", often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. 25. In this context, useful reference can be made to Sections 113A & 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing statutory presumptions in aid of Sections 498A & 3048 respectively, of the IPC. When a woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, if it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative there arises a presumption that the husband or such relative abetted the suicide, in which event the penalty under Section 306 is attracted. The presumption under Section 1134 was statutorily employed by the Parliament, realizing the menace and in an attempt to prevent domestic violence unleashed on women in the patriarchal society, by deterrence. This exercise would not have been necessary if Section 107 did provide for finding abetment without conscious instigation constituting mens rea. This Court held in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryan that the provision only enabled the court to presume on the abetment, having due regard to all other circumstances of the case and drawing such presumption is purely within the discretion of the Court. 26. xxxx 27. xxxx 40. True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme act of ending his own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily mean that the alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead the victim to eventual death by his own or her own hands. We find no such instigation on the part of the accused in this case, or a definitive abetment to suicide, as alleged in the FIR. There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note was introduced in the case. Before the Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to the various allegations in the suicide note, against the named officers. There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note was introduced in the case. Before the Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to the various allegations in the suicide note, against the named officers. We have found the suicide note to be suspect and we are not convinced that there is any modicum of material in the case to find abetment of suicide. The High Court was not in error, when it quashed the FIR, when no case is made out from the FIS.” 34. In the present case also, the medical evidence of PW-4 (Doctor) and post-mortem report (Ex.P-5) reveals that the deceased died due to asphyxia from hanging, and that the manner of death was suicidal. No evidence on record contradicts this medical finding. Thus, the factum of suicide stands established but does not, by itself, is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution attempted to rely on some minor external injuries found on the body of the deceased to suggest assault “soon before” death. However, the evidence clearly shows that these injuries were not sufficient to contribute the death. There is no medical opinion that these injuries were inflicted immediately before death or that they were indicative of violent assault intended to provoke suicide. Thus, the injuries do not support an inference of abetment. Further, the inquest report (Ex.P-2) show recovery of a dupatta tied to a ceiling fan and the deceased hanging from it. There is no sign of struggle, no evidence of forced entry, and no forensic indication of homicidal violence. The scene is consistent with suicide, but it does not implicate the accused in any proximate act of instigation. 35. The prosecution relied upon the diary (Ex.P-4) written by the deceased seized under Ex.P-22 to show mental harassment. The handwriting expert opinion (Ex.P-8) shows that the entries appear to be in the handwriting of the deceased. Even assuming the entries are genuine, the law requires that the contents themselves be corroborated by independent evidence to prove abetment. The contents of diary shows general emotional expressions but no specific incident, no direct attribution of instigation, nor any reference to a recent act of cruelty by appellant Hari Singh immediately before death. Even assuming the entries are genuine, the law requires that the contents themselves be corroborated by independent evidence to prove abetment. The contents of diary shows general emotional expressions but no specific incident, no direct attribution of instigation, nor any reference to a recent act of cruelty by appellant Hari Singh immediately before death. The most important witnesses for proving abetment are the family members PW-6 (mother), PW-7 (sister), PW-8 (sister-in-law), and PW-9 (brother) of the deceased. Their testimonies deserve close scrutiny. It transpires from the testimonies of these witnesses that all of them alleged that sometime after marriage, accused persons used to harass the deceased. However, their evidence suffers from serious contradictions and lacks corroboration. Significantly, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9 admitted during cross-examination that no complaints were ever lodged before the police or any authority at any time from 2003 to 2009, the entire period of matrimonial life. Not a single letter, message, medical record, or independent witness supports their oral version. This raises doubt about the truth of the allegations since a family would ordinarily seek help if the harassment were truly continuous and serious. Another important aspect is that the deceased frequently visited her parental home and even stayed in Delhi for long periods, yet never expressed fear, never insisted on separation, and never reported any abetment or threats. In fact, the prosecution witnesses admitted that the deceased always returned to her matrimonial home willingly. This conduct is inconsistent with the claim that she was driven to commit suicide by the appellant. The law is settled that mere quarrels, occasional disputes, or domestic discord do not amount to abetment. There must be a proximate cause, a live link, or a last act of instigation that directly leads to suicide. The prosecution has completely failed to establish any such proximate act. No witness could point out any incident of cruelty or instigation by the appellant immediately before 31.12.2009, the date on which the deceased committed suicide. Independent witnesses (PW-1 Narendra Verma and PW-3 Hemant Sahu) who were the first to see the deceased hanging did not support the prosecution version of ongoing cruelty. Their evidence establishes only that they found the deceased hanging. There is no evidence of any explicit instigation, intentional aid, or affirmative act by the accused persons that could satisfy Section 107 IPC. Independent witnesses (PW-1 Narendra Verma and PW-3 Hemant Sahu) who were the first to see the deceased hanging did not support the prosecution version of ongoing cruelty. Their evidence establishes only that they found the deceased hanging. There is no evidence of any explicit instigation, intentional aid, or affirmative act by the accused persons that could satisfy Section 107 IPC. There is no letter, no threat, no demand, no last conversation, no eyewitness account, and no circumstantial chain establishing a live link between any act of appellant Hari Singh and the suicide of the deceased. Allegations of old quarrels or financial disputes do not, in law, amount to abetment unless intentionally aimed to provoke suicide. The burden to prove abetment lies fully on the prosecution, and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not suspicion or probability. In the present case, at best, the evidence creates a suspicion of marital discord, but this is far from the legal threshold required to convict under Section 306. 36. Applying the legal standards laid down by the Supreme Court that (a) harassment must be of such intensity as to compel suicide, (b) there must be intention to provoke suicide, and (c) there must be a proximate link between acts of the accused and the suicide, the prosecution evidence falls patently short in this case. If this Court takes the suicidal notes as correct and genuine, even then this Court do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. 37. For the foregoing reasons, there is no whisper of any abetment under Section 107 of IPC, which is essential to convict the person for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The findings of conviction of appellant Hari Singh in CRA No.82/2013 recorded by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable. 38. As regards acquittal of accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in ACQ No. 159/2024, it is clear that the learned Trial court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly acquitted them of the charges under Sections 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC. 39. 38. As regards acquittal of accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in ACQ No. 159/2024, it is clear that the learned Trial court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly acquitted them of the charges under Sections 304-B, 306 and 302/34 of IPC. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka , has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-- inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re- appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 40. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition of Mallappa (supra) in the ACQ A. No.159/2014, as well and looking to the statement of witnesses and finding recorded by the learned Courts, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition of Mallappa (supra) in the ACQ A. No.159/2014, as well and looking to the statement of witnesses and finding recorded by the learned Courts, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 41. In CRA No.82/2013 filed by appellant Hari Singh, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the provision of Section 107 and 306 of IPC properly. 42. Resultantly, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in acquitting accused/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in ACQ A. No.159/2014 is hereby affirmed and the acquittal appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed. 43. CRA No.82/2013 filed by appellant Hari Singh is allowed. The impugned judgment so far it relates to conviction of appellant Hari Singh is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. 44. Appellant Hari Singh in CRA No.82/2013 is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 45. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.