[2025:RJ-JP:29598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 50/2009 Ram Dayal S/o Shri Mangtu Ram, R/o Village Berka, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Rajesh S/o Shrichand, R/o Village Talchhera, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.R. Goyal Mr. Krishna Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/07/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner- complainant Ram Dayal aggrieved from order of acquittal of respondent No.2 accused from charge under Sections 354, 457 and 306 IPC in Sessions Case No.68/2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur on 31.10.2008. 2. Considered submission of learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The Trial Court has considered a fact that offence under Section 354 IPC was allegedly committed on 01.06.2006, whereas deceased Kamlesh has committed suicide on 11.07.2006 and husband of Kamlesh has not reported the matter to police. The Trial Court has also noticed that PW-1 to PW-4 all neighbours have [2025:RJ-JP:29598] (2 of 3) [CRLR-50/2009] turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The Trial Court has disbelieved Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-13 and did not found as bona-fide documents. 4. The matter pertains to Sections 306 and 107 IPC, wherein the prosecution has to establish that the death of deceased was a result of abatement by respondent-accused. The law over the point is well settled that there must be direct act or incitement that leave no option. The prosecution has to prove that the accused has created unbearable harassment or torture leaving victim to opt for suicide as only escape. In case of Prakash and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 INSC 1020, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provision under Sections 306 and 107 IPC about abatement of suicide and abatement thing has held that instigation or incitement on part of accused is the graveman of offence of abatement to suicide. 5. Having considered the legal position, and the evidence on record, we found that there is no material on record to draw a conclusion or connect the respondent-accused with suicide of deceased. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any serious error while acquitting the respondent-accused from the charge. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under [2025:RJ-JP:29598] (3 of 3) [CRLR-50/2009] the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthend by the Trial Court. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /76