Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal while adjudicating a criminal appeal in terms of which judgement passed by the trial court convicting the appellant under section 306/498–A RPC was challenged has held “there must be direct or indirect cogent evidence that the act on the part of the accused is capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation of harassment is not enough but the act/omission of the accused must be of such nature having the potential of encouraging or goading the victim to commit suicide and also proximate to the act of suicide by the victim”.

The case at hand involved the death of a lady under suspicious circumstances within eight months of her marriage, and on the basis of statements recorded under 164-A CrPC, the police registered an FIR under Sections 306/498-A Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against the husband. The appellant-husand was subsequently convicted vide judgment dated 21.04.2015 for commission of offences under Section 306/498-A RPC and vide order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the court of Trial Court the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of offence under Section 306 RPC and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 498-A RPC. 

The High Court after analysing the material collected during the course of investigation and evidence adduced by the prosecution observed that the witness had made improvements in the statement recorded before the court vis-à-vis statement recorded under section 164 CRPC and the court while relying on various precedents laid down by Supreme Court held that “prosecution cannot derive any benefit from statement made by a witness for the first time in court during the trial but not made during the course of investigation”. 

The Court as such observed that their was no convincing and cogent evidence with regard to the harassment/cruelty meted out to the deceased and because of the material improvements made by the prosecution, prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the judgement of the trial court was set aside and appellant was acquitted.