The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, of the conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide. The prosecution's failure to provide consistent witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence undermined the charges. The Court emphasized that abetment requires a clear intention and concrete act of instigation, which was not sufficiently proved in this case.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

   • Section 306: Abetment of suicide
   • Section 107: Abetment of a thing (definition)

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

   • Section 374: Appeals
   • Section 313: Examination of the accused

1. Case Background

• The appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of a young woman by harassment. He was initially convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine.

2. Prosecution's Case

• The appellant, a former tenant of the deceased's family, allegedly harassed the deceased, threatening her and her family if she refused to marry him. The deceased consumed poison on 05.07.2000 and died the next day. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, primarily from the deceased's family.

3. Defense's Argument

• The defense argued that the testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory. They highlighted that even if the prosecution's claims were accepted, the evidence was insufficient to establish abetment. The defense also pointed out that the appellant had no reason to threaten the deceased as he had married someone else two months before the incident.

4. Court's Analysis

• The Supreme Court noted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the family members (PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, and others). Discrepancies about the presence of the father at the hospital and the timeline of events raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
• The Court also observed that crucial evidence, like the presence of pesticide traces or recovery of the poison container, was missing. The investigating officer failed to verify essential details that could have corroborated the prosecution's story.

5. Legal Provisions and Precedents

• The judgment discussed Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, emphasizing that abetment involves instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Citing precedents like Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and M. Mohan v. State, the Court reiterated that mere allegations or harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC.

6. Conclusion and Judgment

• The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies, lack of crucial evidence, and unexplained delays in filing the FIR weakened the case. Consequently, the conviction under Section 306 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court clarified that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), mere allegations or accusations are not enough. There must be concrete evidence demonstrating that the accused actively instigated or assisted the victim in committing suicide. The prosecution must prove a clear causal link between the accused's actions and the victim’s suicide, supported by consistent and credible evidence.

Subjects:

Criminal Law—Abetment to Suicide—Conviction Overturned

• Abetment to Suicide
• Indian Penal Code
• Section 306 IPC
• Conviction Overturned
• Witness Testimony