Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2232 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. DILIPBHAI BHIMJIBHAI SARVAIYA

2024-12-19

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2006 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Nitaben daughter of the complainant, prior to performing marriage with accused No. 1, was married with one Ashokbhai Zaverbhai Solanki resident of Ahmedabad, however, they were separated within six months and after a period of ten years, Nitaben married with accused No. 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, Nitaben started residing with accused and when Nitaben came to know about the illicit relation between the accused, the dispute cropped up between them and the accused was giving mental and physical torture to Nitaben. The said Nitaben complained of ill-treatment, harassment and torture by the accused to the complainant, but to save her marriage life, the complainant did not utter any word. On account of mental and physical torture, Nitaben has committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor, due to which she succumbed to the injury. 2.1 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR being C.R. No. I-265/2006 came to be lodged with Pradhyumannagar Police Station for the aforesaid offences. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has drawn the panchnama of the scene of offence, drawn the inquest panchnama, collected necessary evidence against the accused, recorded the dying declaration and sent the dead body for postmortem and, thereafter recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. 2.2 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case. 2.3 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 19.07.2007 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to him, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court. 2.4 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.5 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Harshad Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused at length. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE: 5. Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective. She has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by examining the witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses and failed to appreciate the statutory provision. She has referred to the evidence of PW-2 Jayaben Arvindbhai examined at Exhibit 48, PW-8 Manojbhai Arvindbhai Godhaniya examined at Exhibit 63, PW-9 Bipinbhai Arvindbhai Godhaniya examined at Exhibit 64, PW-10 Satishbhai Manubhai Godhaniya examined at Exhibit 71 and PW-11 Dharmendra Khimjibhai Patel examined at Exhibit 72 and has submitted that these witnesses have fully corroborated and supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has established the charges levelled against the accused for the aforesaid offences. She has submitted that the marriage span of the deceased and accused No. 1 was only two months and within two months, Nitaben committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor and, therefore, the allegation qua cruelty meted out to the deceased ought to have considered by the trial Court under the provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, but the same has not been considered by the trial Court. She has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of fact and law in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution was unable to prove the charge levelled against the accused. She has submitted that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the offences as alleged has also established through the oral well as documentary evidence. 5.1 According to her submission, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 6. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with the settled principle of law and fact and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has submitted that though the marriage span of deceased was only two months, but during these two months, deceased was staying at matrimonial only for 4-5 days in first point of time and 4-5 days in last point of time and during the said period, she was stayed at her parental home as per the rituals. He has submitted that though the marriage span of deceased was only two months, but during these two months, deceased was staying at matrimonial only for 4-5 days in first point of time and 4-5 days in last point of time and during the said period, she was stayed at her parental home as per the rituals. He has submitted that between five days, the deceased has not stated anything with regard to the allegation of ill-treatment given by accused No. 1 at the instance of accused No. 2 and under such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has submitted that in fact, the prosecution has come out with a story that accused No. 1 having an illicit relation with accused No. 2 being mother, who is not real mother, but she is mother of accused No. 1. He has submitted that the witnesses have gone to the extent and malice relation between mother and son by alleging that accused No. 1 having illicit relation with accused No. 2, for which no any evidence has been produced. He has submitted that during the course of the investigation, no any iota of evidence collected by the concerned police officer and produced on record and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the said aspect. He has submitted that omission and contradiction in the evidence of the Investigating Officer and, therefore, after perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence. He has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed. 7. This Court has perused the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and carefully considered the rival contentions, evidence and material placed on record. 8. It is relevant to refer to the certain undisputed facts which are as under: 8.1 The deceased Nitaben got married with one Ashokbhai at Ahmedabad and after marriage span of six months, she returned to her parental home and for a period of ten years, the deceased resided at her parental home. 8. It is relevant to refer to the certain undisputed facts which are as under: 8.1 The deceased Nitaben got married with one Ashokbhai at Ahmedabad and after marriage span of six months, she returned to her parental home and for a period of ten years, the deceased resided at her parental home. During that period, there was litigation instituted by and on behalf of the deceased and said Ashokbhai and family members and ultimately, she had taken the divorce in 2005 and, thereafter, she got married with accused No. 1 on 25.05.2006. After the deceased got married with accused No. 1, she was residing with her husband and mother-in-law at Rajkot. 8.2 After marriage on 25.05.2006, the deceased was taken back to her parental home as per the rituals where she stayed for more than a month and on 08.07.2006, she returned to her matrimonial home meaning thereby the deceased stayed only nine days with the accused. On 13.07.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor. During first marriage or the second marriage, the deceased hardly stayed with her matrimonial home at the first instance for six months after first marriage and nine days after second marriage and for more than ten years, she stayed at her parental home. 8.3 The allegation made against accused No. 1 that he was having illicit relation with accused No. 2 by the prosecution on the basis that the deceased has informed about the said relationship to her brother i.e. PW-8 and in turned PW-2 and other family members came to know about the said facts meaning thereby it was a hearsay evidence and there was no any evidence led by the prosecution. 8.4 It is come on record and unearth during the course of investigation that though the marriage span of deceased and the present accused was only one and half months and out of one and half months, she was residing with accused only for nine days and on 30.07.2006, the deceased was taken to gynecologist by her mother-in-law where on examination by the doctor, the fact revealed that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of 10-11 weeks. The mother-in-law shocked in coming to the knowledge about the pregnancy and under such circumstances, the deceased has taken the extreme steps of committing suicide. The mother-in-law shocked in coming to the knowledge about the pregnancy and under such circumstances, the deceased has taken the extreme steps of committing suicide. It is also an undisputed fact that the incident took place on 13.06.2006 and the FIR registered on 11.07.2006 before the Pradhyumannagar Police Station. 8.5 The prosecution has not examined the said witness i.e. gynecologist whose statement was recorded during the course of the investigation and examined the deceased on very day i.e. on 30.07.2006 and the fact revealed that the deceased was carrying pregnancy, which was confirmed by the doctor during the course of postmortem. CONCLUSION: 9. In light of the above referred undisputed facts, now the prosecution case is required to be considered and the evidence of the witnesses is also required to be considered i.e. PW-2, PW-8, PW-9, 10 and 11. 10. On perusal of evidence of PW-2 i.e. mother of the deceased, it appears that in the cross-examination, she has admitted that so far as the ill-treatment given by the husband is concerned, she has not stated the said fact before the police at the time of recording the statement. It was also admitted by this witness that on the date of incident, accused No. 1 was in drunken condition and because of that, he has slap the deceased and on account of that the deceased committed suicide, which fact was not stated before the police and, therefore, the exaggeration and omission are proved from the evidence of the witness of PW-2. 11. On perusal of evidence of PW-8 i.e. brother who was having cutting saloon just opposite the timber mart of PW-11, it appears that he has stated that the landline telephone was at the said timber mart wherein he received telephone call from the deceased prior to 3-4 days of the date of incident that the accused harassing the deceased and giving mental and physical torture as she was knowing about illicit relation between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. The serious and malicious allegation made by the witnesses and on account of that she was harassing by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. The said fact was not corroborated by any other independent evidence or material. 11.1 In his cross-examination, the fact is completely different. The summery of evidence of PW-8 as under: “The engagement comprised their relatives. The serious and malicious allegation made by the witnesses and on account of that she was harassing by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. The said fact was not corroborated by any other independent evidence or material. 11.1 In his cross-examination, the fact is completely different. The summery of evidence of PW-8 as under: “The engagement comprised their relatives. uncles (mama and mausa) of the accused were there. It is true that I came to depose in the Court earlier too; however, he did not depose as the Court was closed. Today, his brothers, Bipinbhai and Satishbhai Kanubhai, and he has come here for deposing. He went to the Court for visiting an officer. He inquired in the office as to where they were supposed to go. It is not true that before deposing, it was told that how to depose. During the time when they came from Dhari to Rajkot, it was not discussed among them, the brothers, as to what to say in the Court. He reached Rajkot from Dhari on the night of the 13th. The witness stated that he started for Rajkot from Dhari on the night of the 13th. He reached Rajkot at about 8-8.30 am. He went to visit his sister at the Civil Hospital after reaching Rajkot. Police of Civil Hospital were also present there. The police did not inquire me. he did not dictate anything to the police. When he came to Civil Hospital from Dhari, his brother namely Bipinbhai, cousins (brothers) namely Bhanubhai Kanubhai and Jitubhai Kanubhai, two maternal son-in-laws namely Mukeshbhai and Ghanshyambhai, his mother, and he came to the Civil Hospital. he do not know if the police met my mother. It is true that he did not submit any complaint at Dhari Police Station. They, four-five persons, came to the Police Station for registering a complaint. he went to Pradyumannagar Police Station for registering a complaint, immediately after reaching Rajkot. he did not visit any other police station or meet any other officer on that day. he did not submit any complaint in writing. he did not know if my mother submitted a complaint. he was standing outside; therefore, he do not know if his mother submitted a complaint. The call informing the accident of my sister was received by Satishbhai. he do not know the number of that call. he did not submit any complaint in writing. he did not know if my mother submitted a complaint. he was standing outside; therefore, he do not know if his mother submitted a complaint. The call informing the accident of my sister was received by Satishbhai. he do not know the number of that call. His sister was residing in J.B. Aapartment; located behind Kotak School, near Shastri Maidan, Rajkot. he did not know the phone number of his sister’s home, he did not know the number from which the call was made from Rajkot. The phone call made on the number 21660 - landline connection of his home was received from Patel Timber Mart. He did not keep a mobile phone; but my brother keeps one. His brother’s phone number is 99041 14614. It is not true that he stated that such a call was received from Patel Timber Mart. His sister’s first marriage was solemnized in 1990 or 1992. It was solemnized at Ahmedabad. They both divorced thereafter. It is true that my sister filed a criminal case in Dhari Court against his brother-in-law who lived in Ahmedabad; and it was a case for maintenance. The discord between them was the reason for their divorce. It is true that it is not dictated in his statement before the police that after the wedding, his sister was living at Rajkot with Dilipbhai, her stepmother namely Savitaben and her sister-in-law. It is true that it is mentioned in my statement before the police that daughter of his sister’s maternal uncle took my sister with her. It is not true that his sister took this step as she was suffering from epilepsy. It is not true that Satishbhai did not receive any such call from my brother-in-law. It is not true that he did not receive any call from his sister. It is not true that he did not receive a phone call from his sister; ans she said “her husband and her stepmother have an affair and he was being subjected to harassment as he has come to know about the same.” 12. On perusal of the evidence of PW-9 i.e. younger brother of PW-8, it appears that he was stated that he was accompanied PW-8 at the time of receiving the said telephone call made by the deceased. 13. On perusal of the evidence of PW-9 i.e. younger brother of PW-8, it appears that he was stated that he was accompanied PW-8 at the time of receiving the said telephone call made by the deceased. 13. In fact, PW-11 has specifically stated that only PW-8 Manojbhai came to his shop and, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution also falsified by their own witnesses and there was material exaggeration and omission proved from the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the fact which is subsequently come on record that on very day i.e. on the date of incident, accused No. 2 had taken the deceased to gynecologist and the deceased was having carried pregnancy of about 10-12 weeks, in fact, the marriage took place only two months from the date of incident, which was an admitted fact. The prosecution has not examined Dr. Sushmaben - gynecologist though her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, however, she was not examined. In fact, the doctor who performed postmortem examined at Exhibit 56 and in the postmortem report, the doctor has opined that there was fetus of about 8-10 weeks which led to the fact that deceased having physical relationship with someone prior to the date of marriage with accused No. 1 and because of that illicit relation, the deceased was carried pregnancy. The said fact was come to light on the date of incident to the mother-in-law since she was accompanied to the deceased at gynecologist and she was afraid of the said fact and the same was the reason to take such extreme steps. Except this, there was no other allegation against the present accused and the allegation made against the accused which was absolutely not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses. It is also relevant to note that though the whole case is based on the fact that the prior to the date of incident, before about 4-5 days the deceased made telephone call at the shop of Patel Timber Mart i.e. PW-11 where she was talked with her brother Manojbhai but from which telephone number she talked with Manojbhai on landline or whether the deceased having any mobile or from which telephone number the deceased made telephone call. But there was no material or evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. But there was no material or evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. It was serious lacuna on the part of the investigation that the false story based on that telephone message where the deceased first time informed about the alleged illicit relation between accused No. 1 and 2 to her brother, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. Even just prior to 3-4 days of the incident, she reached to the matrimonial home after performing rituals because after living her parental home she stayed with relative at Village: Chhapadia for 3-4 days and only, thereafter, reached to the matrimonial home. So all these facts lead to only conclusion that the story put forward by the prosecution is completely disbelieved and, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the accused. 14. Therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and after examining oral as well as documentary evidence and going through the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has right passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. LEGAL PROVISIONS: 15. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means: (a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means: (a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 15.1 Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15.2 Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “114. Abettor present when offence is committed - Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.” 15.3 Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing. Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 16. Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 16. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Aneja and others in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2012 dated 03.10.2024 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Para-17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 as under: “17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2021) 19 SCC 144 , after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under: “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its corelation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 , it was observed as under: “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that 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. 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. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 , while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under: “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment. (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 19. This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 20. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC Online SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under: “44...........It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their 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. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 18. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 20. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras-20 and 21 as under: “20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: “42........... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. The principles read thus: “42........... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.” 21. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 22. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.