JUDGMENT : 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 17.02.2014 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.97/2010, whereby, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting her daughter-in-law (deceased – Pratibha Singh Thakur) to commit suicide. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with son of the respondent on 23.06.2007. It is admitted position that the respondent is a teacher and deceased was an educated woman. On 03.01.2009, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself by using Chunari in her matrimonial house. After the incident, father-in-law of the deceased namely, Ashwini Kumar Thakur has lodged Merg intimation at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg vide Ex.P-1. Thereafter, spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-2. After issuing the notice vide Ex.P-3, death inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4. The deceased has also left the suicide note which was written in the diary seized as Article-A. One mobile, one dot pen and broken bolt of the door were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide PM report (Ex.P-16), cause of death was opined to be “asphyxia due to hanging”. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and FIR was registered against the accused on 06.01.2009 vide Ex.P-10. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she took the plea that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas, the respondent/accused in her defence examined herself. 5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against her by the judgment impugned. Against the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 6. Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and looking to the circumstances in which the suicide has been committed, the respondent/accused deserves to be convicted. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set-aside. 7. Against the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 6. Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and looking to the circumstances in which the suicide has been committed, the respondent/accused deserves to be convicted. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the necessary ingredients to establish the abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC are missing and there is want of basic element of Section 107 of the IPC. He further submits that there was no instigation on the part of the respondent to abet her to commit suicide in any manner. The deceased herself was hypersensitive lady and only a suggestion was put by the respondent to the deceased not to put her garments in an open place. On such trivial issue, the deceased took such extreme step. Therefore, act of the deceased does not constitute the offence of abetment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the judgments of this Court in the matter of Surendra Kumar Vs. State of CG, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4193 and Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of CG through Secretary and Ors., 2020 SCC OnlIne Chh 1486 : (2020) 3 CGLJ 7. He also submits that law is well established with regard to scope of acquittal and whenever two views are possible, no interference is required by the Appellate Court and he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of State of CG through District Magistrate Vs. Tribhuwan Paswan and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4249. He lastly submits that the judgment passed by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of Surendra Kumar (Supra), this Court, while dealing with an issue relating to Section 306 of the IPC, analyzed the precedents of law in connection with abetment described under Section 107 IPC and following was observed at paragraph 12 which reads thus:- 12. Recently, in the matter of Kasi Bai & Ors. 9. In the matter of Surendra Kumar (Supra), this Court, while dealing with an issue relating to Section 306 of the IPC, analyzed the precedents of law in connection with abetment described under Section 107 IPC and following was observed at paragraph 12 which reads thus:- 12. Recently, in the matter of Kasi Bai & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC Onine SC 575, it was observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 306 IPC also, there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. The relevant paras i.e. 8-10 read as under:- “8. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. 9. In M. Mohan v. State [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police1, this Court has elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, and after discussing various earlier decisions has observed as under:— “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar, [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) “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. 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.” In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn. 42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, [ (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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. 43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [ (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. 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. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.” 10. Further, when the deceased herself was hypersensitive about normal human conduct and committed suicide, in such situation, conduct of the deceased is also an important factor to analyze the evidence. In this regard, following was observed in the matter of Sandeep Mishra (Supra) at paragraph 26 :- “26. Every person has a right to choose their better half according to their wish and nobody can compel him/her to do things contradictorily. In this regard, following was observed in the matter of Sandeep Mishra (Supra) at paragraph 26 :- “26. Every person has a right to choose their better half according to their wish and nobody can compel him/her to do things contradictorily. It is nothing but the hypersensitivity of the deceased by which she took such an extreme step to commit suicide and the mere reason that the petitioner refused to marry with the deceased Sonam Sharma cannot be said as a good reason for her to commit suicide. It is also quite vivid that the deceased was a young lady of 26 years who was running her own business. It cannot be expected of her to resort to such an extreme measure of committing suicide. She could have instead filed a complaint against the petitioner and could have shared her feelings with her mother/sister/brother and it is the hypersensitivity of the deceased that she committed suicide as there is also no evidence on record that shows that petitioner forced her or harassed her in any way and there was no active act or instigation done by the petitioner as a consequence of which, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Nothing was mentioned in the suicide note or even in the statement of the witnesses which could reflect even a bleak that petitioner's actions could be responsible for deceased Sonam Sharma's suicide and the judgment relied upon by learned State counsel is clearly distinguishable in light of the conclusion reached hereinabove.” 11. Moreover, learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has made observation regarding suicide note of the deceased (Article A) at paragraph 16. Perusal of said note reveals that the deceased was hypersensitive lady and she could not bear normal wear and tear of life. When her mother-in-law i.e. the accused, has given a suggestion not to put her undergarments in an open place, she made a mountain out of a molehill and ended her life by taking an extreme step. In the entire evidence on record, this Court does not find any direct or proximate reason to reach to the conclusion that the respondent/accused has instigated the deceased for committing suicide which would constitute the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. 12. In the entire evidence on record, this Court does not find any direct or proximate reason to reach to the conclusion that the respondent/accused has instigated the deceased for committing suicide which would constitute the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. 12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while acquitting the accused and rightly placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Gagula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1-2) SBR 63 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 . 13. Furthermore, in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal, following was observed in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 at para 25 which reads thus : “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 14. In light of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the finding arrived at by the Court below is a possible one and thus the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed. 15. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.