JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 30.01.2006 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 (Old Sessions Case No.36 of 2014) passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Vadodara at Savli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC ’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. That deceased Salraben was wife of the accused No.1 Vitthalbhai Punjabhai Vankar and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law namely Leelaben Punjabhai Vankar and father-in-law namely Punjabhai Somabhai Vankar of deceased Sarlabenben. The accused had physically and mentally tortured the deceased Sarlabenben by demanding dowry and a quarrel regarding dowry had taken place between them. The deceased Sarlabenben was so tired with the quarrel which led her to commit suicide by hanging herself on 06.11.2013. The brother of the deceased Rameshchandra Dahyabhai had lodged a complaint against the accused with Desar Police Station being I-C.R.No.46 of 2013. 2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.9 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.10, 11 and 12 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and have produced 24 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and have produced 24 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and produced 24 documentary evidences on record in support the case, but the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the same in proper perspective. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the legal provisions and has committed a grave error, which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Even though, the witnesses have turned hostile, the learned Trial Court ought to have exercised the powers vested under the provisions of law to find out the truth to do proper justice and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Though the act of the deceased has taken place at the residence of the accused, which has led to the death of the deceased, the accused have not explained under what circumstances and what reasons, the deceased had committed such an act. Even though, the witnesses, who have been examined, are reliable, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in recording the evidences, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Hardik Raval for the respondents - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Hardik Raval for the respondents - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for learned advocate for the accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) …….. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 phrase-ologies 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 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. (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 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. 7.1 The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case of Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13179 of 2023) observed as under: 31. The instant case pertains to challenge against concurrent findings of fact favouring the acquittal of the respondent, it would be cogent to delve into an analysis of the principles underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings. The following broad principles can be culled out after a comprehensive analysis of judicial pronouncements: i) Criminal jurisprudence emphasises on the fundamental essence of liberty and presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. This presumption gets emboldened by virtue of concurrent findings of acquittal. Therefore, this court must be extracautious while dealing with a challenge against acquittal as the said presumption gets reinforced by virtue of a well-reasoned favourable outcome. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution side becomes more burdensome pursuant to the said double presumption. ii) In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this Court would ordinarily not interfere with such view considering the principle of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950, unless perversity is blatantly forthcoming and there are compelling reasons. iii) Where two views are possible, then this Court would not ordinarily interfere and reverse the concurrent findings of acquittal. However, where the situation is such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then, notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view. However, where the situation is such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then, notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view. iv) To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of acquittal are ‘perverse’ it is to be seen whether there has been failure of justice. This Court in Babu v. State of Kerala clarified the ambit of the term ‘perversity’ as “if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/admissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is ‘against the weight of evidence’, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality.” v) In situations of concurrent findings favoring accused, interference is required where the trial court adopted an incorrect approach in framing of an issue of fact and the appellate court whilst affirming the view of the trial court, lacked in appreciating the evidence produced by the accused in rebutting a legal presumption. [Vide Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh] vi) Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is based on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in re-appreciation of any fundamental evidentiary material or a manifest error of law or in cases of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice or the decision is manifestly unjust or where an acquittal which is fundamentally based on an exaggerated adherence to the principle of granting benefit of doubt to the accused, is liable to be set aside. Say in cases where the court severed the connection between accused and criminality committed by him upon a cursory examination of evidences. [Vide State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh and Others and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar.] 8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 9. The accused has been charged with the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and at this juncture it would be fit to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others versus State of Maharashtra in the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.5543 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 1073 of 2023 on 20 December 2024 in paras 12 to 22 which are as under: “12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are 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. 107. Abetment of a thing—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or 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; or Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation-1: A person who, by willful 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.” 13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC , it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC , has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a 10 particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC , the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. 16. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. 16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC . It observed as follows: 16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. ……….. 18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC . ………. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh V. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri)1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) “1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. … ……….. 23. 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) “17. … ……….. 23. 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) “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 the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and 12 differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences 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.” 24. 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 words“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 other. 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. 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 this 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.” 17. 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.” 17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC , there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows: “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC , it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” 19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:- “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. 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.” 20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or 16 emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 21. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or 16 emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana observed as follows: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) 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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) 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. 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 the 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 . 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. 16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. 18 Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.” 22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. 18 Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.” 22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of 19 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. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.” 10. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Ramesh Chandra Dhaya Bhai Parmar at Exh.16. The witness is the brother of deceased Sarlabenben and he has stated that his sister Sarlabenben was married to the accused No.1 in the year 2007 and she expired on 06.11.2013. Out of the wedlock, his sister had one daughter and his sister had committed suicide by hanging herself on a ‘neem’ tree in the courtyard of her matrimonial house at Vejpur. Out of the wedlock, his sister had one daughter and his sister had committed suicide by hanging herself on a ‘neem’ tree in the courtyard of her matrimonial house at Vejpur. His brother-in-law had informed his younger brother Sanjay and they were informed that Sarlabenben was being taken to the Government Hospital, Savli in the 108 ambulance. When they went to the government Hospital at Savli, they saw the dead body of Sarlaben lying on a stretcher and some relatives and neighbours were present, who told him that Sarlaben had a fight with the accused No.1 on the previous night and in the morning, she had committed suicide by hanging on the ‘neem’ tree. Her dead-body was sent for post and he had filed the complaint with Desar Police Station, which is produced at Exh.17. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his sister was residing with her husband at Jarod as he was working at Jarod and both of them were living separately from the other in-laws. His sister had come to his house 2 to 3 years before the incident, but she did not say that her father-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her. He does not know whether his sister was suffering from tuberculosis and whether she was being treated at TB Hospital, Gotri. 10.1 The prosecution has examined PW-2 Karsanbhai Devabhai Vankar at Exh.19 and PW-3 Kanubhai Ramjibhai Vankar atExh.22. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced that Exh.20 and both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP. 10.2 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Ishwarsinh Ratansinh Gohil at Exh.23 and PW-5 Bhailalbhai Bhulabhai Vankar at Exh.28. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama by which the clothes worn by the deceased Sarlaben at the time of the incident were seized by the Investigating Officer, which is produced that Exh.20 and both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP. 10.3 The prosecution has examined PW-6 Diwaliben Dahyabhai Parmar at Exh.30 and the witness is the mother of the deceased, who has supported the case of prosecution and has stated that after the marriage of her daughter Sarlaben in the year 2007, she was residing with the accused No.1 at Jarod village and they used to fight as her husband had an affair with one girl and he used to physically assault her. Her daughter had come to her house with her husband when the mother-in-law of the witness had expired and after the cremation, the accused No.1 had a fight with her daughter and told her not to come to the matrimonial house and that he would get another wife. The neighbour and others got involved and an oral compromise was arrived at. Her daughter had gone to her matrimonial house. 4 to 5 days after the incident, her son Sanjay was informed that the deceased was being taken to the hospital in 108 ambulance. She was not speaking and they had gone to the hospital at Savli, where they saw the dead body of her daughter lying on the stretcher. She was informed that the deceased and the accused No.1 had a fight on the previous night as the accused No.1 had relation with some girl and her daughter had committed suicide by hanging. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that all these facts have not been narrated by her in her statement before the police and she has not filed any complaint before the police station regarding any mental or physical cruelty to her daughter, the accused. That she had not told anyone in her society about the extramarital affair of her son-in-law. 10.4 The prosecution has examined PW-7 Sanjay Dahyabhai Parmar at Exh.31 and the is the brother of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the death of his sister and in his presence, he did not have any conversation with his sister as he was a labourer and would go for work at 7:00 am to 8:00 am and return home at around 6:00 pm. 10.5 the prosecution has examined PW-8 Ashwinbhai Babubhai Parmar at Exh.32 and the witness is the husband of the sister of the deceased. 10.5 the prosecution has examined PW-8 Ashwinbhai Babubhai Parmar at Exh.32 and the witness is the husband of the sister of the deceased. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and stated that on 06.11.2013 while he was at Vadodara, his wife, Bhanuben had telephoned him that Sarlaben has expired and the dead body was lying at Janmotri Hospital, Savli. When they went to the hospital, they found the dead body of Sarlaben on a stretcher and they were informed that Sarlaben had committed suicide by hanging as she had a fight with the accused No.1 as he was having an extramarital affair. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident, and the fact stated by him in the examination-in-chief were told to him by his mother-in-law. 10.6 The prosecution has examined PW-9 Bhanuben Ashwinbhai Parmar at Exh.33 and PW-10 Kashiben Govindbhai Vankar at Exh.34 and the witnesses are the sister and aunty of deceased Sarlaben and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the witnesses have admitted that they do not have any personal information regarding the death of Sarlaben and they have stated the fact of the compromise on the say of the mother of deceased Sarlaben. 10.7 The prosecution has examined PW-11 Ashokkumar Popatlal Jani at Exh.35 and the witness is the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajkot and he has stated that on 07.11.2013 while he was on duty at the FSL Mobile Van, Vadodara, he was informed that Accidental Death No.46 of 2013 has been registered at Desar Police Station and he went for a visit to the place of offence and after a minute inspection file, the report which is produced at Exh.36. The witness has stated that he put a wooden ladder on the ‘neem’ tree and found a 2½ inch long white fibre stuck to the bark of the tree and had asked the investigating officer to seize the same for investigation. The witness has stated that he put a wooden ladder on the ‘neem’ tree and found a 2½ inch long white fibre stuck to the bark of the tree and had asked the investigating officer to seize the same for investigation. He had also seen the purple red green leaf branch design saree by magnifying lens, but did not find any particles of plants on the same and prima-facie the fibre stuck to the bark of the tree did not appear to be from the same saree, by which, the deceased had allegedly hanged herself. 10.8 The prosecution has examined PW-12 Rajivkumar Satyendra Sinha at Exh.37 and the witness is the medical officer, who had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and submitted the postmortem note, which is produced at Exh.39. The witness has stated that as per Column No.17 of the postmortem note, a transverse mark of blackish brown colour was present over the outer part of neck, extending bilaterally up to medial margin of sternocledomatoid and below, thyroid cartilage in midline length 6.5cm X width 1.5cm. The ligature mark was well defined and slightly deprieved, and hard like parchment petechial haemorrhage immediately adjacent to the ligature mark was present. The probable cause of death as mentioned in the postmortem note is asphyxia due to strangulation and after the FSL report was received as there was no poison or chemical in the viscera, the final cause of death was strangulation. 10.9. The prosecution has examined PW-13, Rakeshkumar Dahyabhai Bharwad at Exh.40 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure that was undertaken during investigation of the offence. 10.10. The prosecution has examined PW-14 Dhanjibhai Majalbhai Vasava at Exh.54 and this witness is the PSI, Desar Police Station, who had filed the chargesheet in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Savli. 11. 10.10. The prosecution has examined PW-14 Dhanjibhai Majalbhai Vasava at Exh.54 and this witness is the PSI, Desar Police Station, who had filed the chargesheet in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Savli. 11. In the further statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, they accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and record and submitted that a false case has been filed against them and the disease was suffering from tuberculosis and her treatment was going on and they refused to step into the witness box but have examined Defence Witness No.1, Ramanbhai Vallabhai Vankar at Exh.60 and the witness is the uncle of the accused No.1, who has stated that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis and she was admitted to SSG Hospital for treatment and he has produced the medical papers of the disease at Exh.61. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has no personal information about the medical papers. 12. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash (supra), allegations regarding the physical and mental harassment to the deceased by her family members have been made, but there is no particular incident stated that during the marriage span, any incident of cruelty has occurred. It is an admitted fact that the deceased and the accused No.1 were residing separately at Jarod village where the accused No.1 was working and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not residing with them. The main allegation against the accused No.1 is that he was having an affair with some other person, but in the entire evidence, the name of that person has not come on record and no evidence regarding this extramarital affair has been produced on record. It is settled law that the prosecution must prove that there was some instigation enclosed proximity to the incident of suicide, which had led to the deceased to commit suicide, but in the entire evidence, no such evidence has come on record. It is settled law that the prosecution must prove that there was some instigation enclosed proximity to the incident of suicide, which had led to the deceased to commit suicide, but in the entire evidence, no such evidence has come on record. The witnesses have made allegations that they came to know that there was some quarrel between the deceased and the accused No.1 on the previous night, but no neighbours or any person, who had witnessed the quarrel between the deceased and the accused No.1 has been examined by the prosecution on record and mere bald allegations have been made by the witnesses and the complainant. The learned Trial Court has examined all the oral and documentary evidence and has found that there is no evidence that the accused Nos.2 and 3 had instigated the accused No.1 to physically and mentally torture and harass the deceased and in conspiracy with each other, have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Trial court has discussed the decisions of the apex court and has the passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal. 13. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 14. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 (Old Sessions Case No.36 of 2014) passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Vadodara at Savli is hereby confirmed. 15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.