Refusal to Marry — Love Affair — Whether Constitutes Instigation Mere refusal by the accused to marry the deceased, or reluctance of family members to consent to marriage, does not by itself constitute instigation or intentional aiding under Section 107 IPC. In the absence of a positive act proximate to the suicide, criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. Hypersensitivity of the deceased to ordinary discord or disappointment cannot fasten criminal responsibility upon the accused. (Paras 37–40)

advocatemmmohan

Criminal Procedure Code — Sections 397 and 401 — Revision against Acquittal — Scope of Interference

Revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where there exists a manifest illegality, glaring procedural defect, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal, nor can it indirectly convert an acquittal into conviction by ordering retrial in absence of exceptional circumstances. The presumption of innocence stands reinforced by acquittal.

Relied on: Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar; D. Stephens v. Nosibolla; K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram; Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka; Jagannath Choudhary v. Ramayan Singh.

(Paras 13–27)

---

Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 and 107 — Abetment of Suicide — Essential Ingredients

To attract Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea on the part of the accused coupled with a positive act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. Mere harassment, emotional disturbance, or failure of a romantic relationship does not amount to abetment unless there is proximate conduct which compels the deceased to commit suicide. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement which are sufficiently proximate to the occurrence.

Relied on: S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan; Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal; M. Mohan v. State; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana; Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.; Rajesh v. State of Haryana.

(Paras 28–36)

---

Refusal to Marry — Love Affair — Whether Constitutes Instigation

Mere refusal by the accused to marry the deceased, or reluctance of family members to consent to marriage, does not by itself constitute instigation or intentional aiding under Section 107 IPC. In the absence of a positive act proximate to the suicide, criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. Hypersensitivity of the deceased to ordinary discord or disappointment cannot fasten criminal responsibility upon the accused.

(Paras 37–40)

---

Dying Declaration — Whether Sufficient to Attract Section 306 IPC

The dying declaration, though implicating the respondents, did not disclose ingredients of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as required under Section 107 IPC. In the absence of corroborative and cogent material demonstrating active role or proximate incitement, reliance on such declaration alone would not sustain conviction.

(Paras 40–41)

---

Finality of Acquittal — Effect of Dismissal of State Appeal

Where the State’s appeal against acquittal has been dismissed, the acquittal attains finality. A criminal revision filed by a private party cannot unsettle that finality. Once the appellate jurisdiction has been invoked and concluded, revisional interference against the same judgment is impermissible.

Relied on: K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan.

(Paras 43–45)

---

Conclusion — No Manifest Illegality — Revision Dismissed

The Trial Court’s view was a possible and legally sustainable view based on proper appreciation of evidence. There was no misreading of evidence, no procedural irregularity, and no miscarriage of justice warranting interference. Ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not established. The acquittal having attained finality, the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed.