Delhi District Court
State vs Rajat Gupta on 22 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Rajat Gupta
FIR No.: 445/2017
U/s : 306 IPC & 3 SC/ST Act
PS : Govindpuri
SC No. : 557/2019
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 445/2017
Offence complained of : U/s 306 IPC &
U/s 3 SC/ST Act
Date of Offence : 17.06.2017
Name of the complainant : Sh. Jagdish Chander
S/o Late Sh. Subedar
R/o H.No.B-1/227, Sec-H, NDA
Colony, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Name of the accused : Rajat Gupta
S/o Sh. Ram Dass Gupta
R/o Willington Tower No.2
House No.1405A, Crossing
Republic Ghaziabad, UP
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 1 of 86
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 17.12.2019
Date of Arguments : 13.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025
Decision : Accused is acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rajat Gupta, faced trial in this case, for committing offence punishable under Section 306 IPC & 3 SC/ST Act.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet is that a complaint dated 26.10.2015 was received at police station Badarpur, Delhi on 29.10.2015 wherein it has been stated by the complainant being the father of the deceased that :
"1. यह है की प्रार्थी जगदीश चन्द्र पुत्र स्व० श्री सूबेदार निवासी बी- 1/227, गैक्टर-एच, एनडीए कालोनी, कानपुर रोड, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश का रहने वाला हूँ।
2. यह की मेरी पुत्री सवेता कुमारी सेवचेता वर्मा, उम्र 24 वर्ष जो की मॉफ्टवेर इंजिनियर थी तथा ट्रेड इंडिया डॉट कॉम में जॉब करती थी तथा आर मी पाण्डेय निवासी मकान न० 894, गली न० 8, गोविंद पुरी, दिल्ली के मकान में तीसरी मंजिल पर अपनी दो साथियो याशिका व नेहा के साथ किराए पर रहती थी। इसी दौरान रजत गुप्ता जो कि पंचशील विलिंगटन टाबर-2, मकान नः 1405-ए, क्रॉसिंग रिपब्लिक, गाजियाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश का रहने वाला ज्ञात हुआ है मेरी पुत्री श्वेता शर्मा के संपर्क में आया। रजत गुप्ता के मोबाइल नंबर क्रमशः 9026068723, 8506003444 है। रजत गुमा मेरी पुत्री में करीब 3 साल में शादी का झांसा देकर उसके साथ गलत तरीके से FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 2 of 86 अवैध शारीरिक संबंध बनाता रहा है और उसका शारीरिक और मानमिक शोषण करता रहा है जो कि सुसाइड नोट से स्पष्ट है। दिनांक 17.06.2017 को मेरी पुत्री द्वारा शादी करने के लिए कहा गया तो रजत गुप्ता ने यह कहकर शादी करने से इनकार कर दिया कि तुम चमार (अनुमूचित) जाति की हो उक्त प्रकरण की जानकारी रजत गुप्ता के फैमिली मेंबरों को भी थी क्योंकि मेरी पुत्री ने मरने में पूर्व एक मुसाइड नोट लिखकर मौका घटनास्थल आर सी पाण्डेय के घर पर छोड़ा है। मुगाइड नोट इस प्रकार है "Dear Papa, Today I committing suicide. Because I am not happy with my life. And Rajat Gupta and his family is responsible for all this. They denied for marriage because I am SC and Rajat Gupta have used me for three years and now I am frustrated from my life. And forcefully I have to do this" उसमें पूर्ण रूप से उक्त क्षेत्र अंकित किए गए हैं जो कि पुलिस द्वारा कब्जे में लिया गया है तथा एक मोबाइल मेरी पुत्री का कब्जे में लिया गया है। मेरी पुत्री का मो० नं 7836865761 है जो पुलिस ने कब्जे में लिया गया है। उक्त घटना दिनांक 17.06.2017 समय करीब 2:30 बजे की है ऐगा पुलिस द्वारा बताया गया है। मेरी पुत्री की मृत्यु का जिम्मेदार पूर्ण रूप से रजत गुप्ता व उसका परिवार है।
अतः श्रीमान जी से अनुरोध है कि मेरी प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कर कानूनी कार्रवाही करने की कृपा करें।
आपकी अनि कृपा होगी।
दिनांक 05.07.2017 प्रार्थी जगदीश चन्द्र पुत्र स्वः श्री सूबेदार निवासी बी-1/227, सैक्टर-एच, एन०डी०ए० कालोनी, कानपुर रोड, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश मो 9450023575".
3. Upon the aforesaid complaint FIR In the present matter was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 3 of 86 registered on 04.11.2017. IO coducted the postmortem of deceased Sweta and collected the MLC and PM report in the present matter. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. Supplementary statement of complainant got recorded. Accused joined the investigation of the case, and thereafter, chargesheet was filed.
4. After investigation chargesheet was filed U/s 306 IPC & Section 3 SC/ST Act. Court took cognizance of the offence against accused. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded.
5. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable under Section 306 IPC & 3 of SC/ST Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case: -
Sr. Name of the Witness Crux of deposition No. PW-1 Sh. Abdul Wakil Witness deposed that he was worked
(Colleague of deceased) with deceased Sweta Verma and had applied leave for 15 days to visit her native place and the same was granted by FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 4 of 86 the company.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-2 Ms. Geeta Witness deposed that her sister/deceased (sister of deceased) was doing a private job and she used talk with her deceased sister on phone.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-3 Sh. Ankit Verma Witness identified the handwriting of her (brother of deceased) deceased sister and proved the following document:-
a) Suicide note Ex.PW3/A The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-4 Sh. Manish Sharma Reached the house of the deceased on the (working in the day of incident and broke open the door. company of deceased) PW-5 Sh. Sumit (working in Witness deposed that he was working the company of with the deceased in the company and deceased) proposed the deceased who refused his proposal as she was in relation with Rajat Gupta.
PW-6 Ms. Ruchi Tripathi Witness deposed that she was working ((working in the with the deceased with her company. company of deceased) FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 5 of 86 PW-7 Sh. Balwant Rai Neighbour of the complainant in the native place.
PW-8 Inspt. Sunil Kumar To prove the various stages of Chandolia (IO) investigation being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) DD No.38A - Ex.PW8/A
b) Seizure memo of dual sim mobile Ex.PW8/B
c) Original suicide note Ex.PW8/P1
d) Statement of identification of dead body of Sh. Jagdish Chandra and Sh.
Ankit Verma Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D
e) Receipt of handing over of dead body of deceased to her father Ex.PW8/E
f) Sealed parcel of viscera Ex.PW8/F
g) Seizure memo of diary Ex.PW8/G
h) Complaint Ex.PW8/H The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-9 ACP Sanjay Bhardwaj To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 6 of 86 documents in his evidence:
a) Rukka Ex.PW9/A This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW- 10 ASI Rajinder Singh To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW10/A
b) Computerize FIR Ex.PW10/B
c) Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW10/C The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-11 HC Rajjo Singh Meena Witness joined the investigation with IO and deposed the different stages of investigation conducted with IO and prove the following documents:
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-12 Inspt Pravin Kumar To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 7 of 86 witness.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-13 (Retd.) ACP Suresh Pal To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) Particulars of account statement of deceased Ex.PW13/A
b) Seizure memo of caste certificate of Jagdish Chandra Ex.PW13/B
c) Seizure memo of caste certificate of deceased Ex.PW13/C
d) Report of tehsildar of caste certificate Ex.PW13/D The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
7. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 06.02.2025 & 13.08.2025 the accused has admitted the genuineness of the following documents: -
S.No. Documents Admitted
1. MLC No.5178/2017 of the deceased Sweta Ex.A Verma dated 17.06.2017 prepared by Dr. FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 8 of 86 Shukar
2. Postmortem report no.834/2017 of deceased Ex.A1 (Colly) and subsequent opinion prepared by Dr. Krishan Kumar Singh, AIIMS New Delhi
3. FSL report dated 29.03.2019 & Certificate U/s Ex.A2 (Colly) 65 B of Indian Evidence Act prepared by Dr. Vivek Kumar, Jr. Forensic Asst. Chemical Examiner
4. FSL report no.2018/CHE4444 dated Ex.A3 26.02.2018 prepared by Naval Kishore Joshi, SSO Chemistry (FSL Rohini)
5. Nodal Officer Vodafone - Idea CDR, CAF & Ex.A4 (Colly) Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile no.7836865761 and 8506003444 (from page no.50 to 123)
6. Statement of Ct. Rajbeer Singh who deposited Ex.A5 the sealed exhibits in the FSL Rohini
7. Statement of Ct. Mukesh Kumar who Ex.A6 deposited the sealed parcel regarding mobile phone of deceased Sweta in FSL Rohini, Delhi
8. Statement of ASI Jeet Singh who recorded Ex.A7 statement of neighbour of complainant
9. FSL report of the chemical examiner Forensic Ex.A8 Science Laboratory prepared by Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner, having FSL report No.SFSLDLH/ 3899/QD/162/23 dated 18.05.2023
8. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:-
PW-1 Sh. Abdul Wakil deposed that in the year 2009, he used to work as Sales Manager in Trade India.Com Company. One Sweta Verma used FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 9 of 86 to work in his office as Sales Executive and she was in his team. He was the concerned officer, to whom she had to report and therefore, she was working under him. He used to talk to her with regard to sale performance. He had no knowledge about her personal life. She used to drink and smoke in office parties which he observed on various occasions. On every weekend, she used to request him that she wanted to leave early from office for meeting her boyfriend, which he used to permit. He did not have any knowledge regarding the boyfriend of Sweta Verma. He only know that Sweta Verma had committed suicide but did not know the cause, as to why she committed suicide. Two- Three days, prior to her committing suicide, she had requested him for 15 days leave as her family members were calling her to her native place for the purpose of marrying her. She was granted leaves by the company. It happened in the year 2017.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW1 deposed that it was correct that prior to her committing suicide, Sweta Verma had told him that her family members had seen one boy. He voluntarily deposed that at that time, she had broken up with her boyfriend.
PW-2 Ms. Geeta (sister of deceased) deposed that deceased Sweta was her younger sister. She was doing private job Delhi. She used to talk on phone. In the year 2015, she got married. She was doing normal talk. She did not know as to how she expired. She did not tell her about any her love affair. She never shared about her personal life. She never FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 10 of 86 disclose about the love relationship with Rajat Gupta. After death of Sweta she came to know that she was having love relationship with Rajat Gupta. She had never seen Rajat Gupta.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW2 deposed that he came to know about the relation of her deceased sister with Rajat Gupta from my family members.
PW-3 Sh. Ankit Verma (brother of deceased) deposed that deceased Sweta was his younger sister. In the year 2014, he had left Sweta in Delhi because she was appointed as Software Engineer in a private company. In the company, her friend Yashika, Priyanka and Rajat Gupta were working. After committing suicide by her sister he came to know that there was a love affair between her deceased sister Sweta and Rajat Gupta. Sweta had informed him about the friendship with Rajat Gupta. He had never received any email from Rajat Gupta as well as deceased Sweta. He was enquired by the police and his statement was recorded. He could identify the handwriting of my deceased sister. During the testimony, witness was shown the suicide note and upon seeing the same, witness deposed that the handwriting on the document Ex.PW3/A was of his sister and the handwriting was from point to 'X' to 'X1' of the suicide note. During the testimony, witness was shown the photocopy of diary dated 01.01.2016, 03.01.2016, 18.04.2016, 28.04.2016, 14.05.2016, and upon seeing the same, witness deposed that the handwriting on the document was of his sister and the same was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 11 of 86 Mark-A1 (Colly). During the testimony, witness was shown photograph of place of occurrence where deceased was hanging and after seeing the same the witness correctly identified the same, the photographs are belongs to his deceased sister and same was Mark-A2 (Colly.) He further deposed that he had never met Rajat Gupta personally. He had seen his photograph in the mobile phone of his deceased sister Sweta. Witness correctly identify the accused.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-3 deposed that Police did not give any written notice to him to join the investigation. He voluntarily deposed that notice was given to his father. He had no knowledge regarding any written notice received by my father in respect to the present matter, nor he had the same. Police had asked him about the handwriting of his deceased sister after showing him the documents Ex. PW3/A and Mark A-1 (Colly) and the same were verified by him. He had not spoken to the accused on mobile phone or through facebook prior to the death of his sister. To his knowledge police had taken his signature on some document but he did not remember the same.
PW-4 Sh. Manish Sharma deposed that in the year 2017, he was working as CRM Executive in TradeIndia.com at Govindpuri. On 17.06.2017, Yashika was received a call from her landlord. Yashika was living with the deceased as a room mate. Yashika requested him to drop her at her room because deceased Shweta was not opening the door from FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 12 of 86 inside and she was also not feeling well. He alongwith Yashika immediately reached at the house where she was living alongwith deceased. They reached at 3rd floor where she was residing and found that door of the room was closed and some other persons was also present there and they were also knocking the door. He had tried to enter the house with the help of one person with the balcony door which was opened when he had entered in the room of the deceased. He found that deceased Shweta was hanging from the fan by chunni. He immediately opened the door from inside. Yashika had seen the deceased from outside the door and she was screaming loudly. Somebody had informed the police and police had reached at the spot. Yashika was called by the police and he was not entered in the room and police had made enquiry from Yashika and articles found in the room were seized by the IO in presence of the Yashika. His statement was recorded by the IO at police station. He was not allowed to enter in the room. He did not know what was seized by the IO from the room of the deceased.
During the testimony witness was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and deposed that he had not given any statement to the police.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, PW-4 deposed that it was correct that neither he knew the accused nor he knew the deceased. It was correct that Yashika informed him that her room mate was not feeling well and suffering from fever. It was correct that he had entered FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 13 of 86 in the flat of deceased and he found her hanging inside the flat in the hall. He voluntarily deposed that he opened the door of the flat immediately. He had entered into the flat from the door of balcony which was opened at that time. He had not seen how many rooms were inside the flat. He did not know about the room of the Yashika and Shweta in the flat. In his company only Yashika was working and Priyanka and Rajat Gupta were not working in his company.
PW-5 Sh. Sumit deposed that in the year 2017, he was working as Territory Sales Manager in Trade India.com at Okhla Phase II, Delhi. Deceased Shweta Verma was also working in the same company. He know her prior to incident. They were working together under same Manager. Whenever she asked regarding working of the company, he used to give advice her and support her regarding office work. He had relation as a good colleagues and he proposed her for marriage but she denied and stated that she does not want to marry with him because she is having a relation with Rajat Gupta and who was living in Ghaziabad. She also told that due to caste differences and she was love relation with Rajat Gupta. One Ruchi who was the good friend of deceased Shweta was also working in his office. Ruchi Gupta may know about her personal life. He was enquired by the police and his statement was recorded by the police. He had not seen accused Rajat Gupta.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-5 deposed that he FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 14 of 86 used to talk with Shweta and she stated to him that she having a boy friend who is living in Ghaziabad. It was correct that he had told to police that when he purposed Shweta for marriage she stated that she had in love relationship with Rajat Gupta. The same fact was not recorded by the IO and he did not know the reason as to why IO had not recorded such fact in his statement. He had not stated to the police that when he asked from Shweta from the marriage of Rajat Gupta she stated that she does not have any plan to marry with Rajat Gupta. He could not tell as to why the above said fact was recorded by IO in his statement. It was correct that Shweta used to smoke cigarette and she also used to smoke cigarette with her colleagues at break time at her office. During testimony the previous statement of witness which was Ex.PW5/DA was shown to the witness and after reading the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. witness stated that his above statement was recorded by IO which was the same recorded by the IO.
PW-6 Ms. Ruchi Tripathi deposed that in the year 2017, she was working as Assistant Manager in Trade India.com at Okhla Phase II, Delhi. She met with deceased Shweta in their company in the year 2015. After about six months she has been shifted with her in PG and they were living together in the PG. At that time, she was having some problem regarding food in the PG that is why she had shifted in a private flat from the PG. Deceased Shweta Verma was living with Yashika and Neha in a flat. Shweta used to tell her that she was in a relationship with Rajat Gupta with her mutual FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 15 of 86 understanding. She had met Rajat Gupta at the time of demonetization because they have problem regarding currency note. At that time, Rajat Gupta had supported him and Shweta regarding providing of currency notes at the time of demonetization. The accused Rajat Gupta and Shweta never committed about their marriage in her presence to her. In June 2017, she had expired by hanging in her flat and at that time she was present at her office. Whenever, they discussed with each other about marriage, she advised her to focus about the carrier. Some times she made herself understand. Thereafter she again came in contact with accused Rajat Gupta. Her statement was recorded by the IO on 22.09.2018. During examination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for State PW-6 deposed that it was correct that she told police in her statement that once there was a fight with Rajat and Shweta and she had left the house and after traveling he searched the Shweta and she was scolded by accused Rajat Gupta that she never do such type of incident. She had stated to police that Rajat never give the assurance for marriage to Shweta and their relations was not depend on the proposal of marriage or physical relation. It was correct that accused Rajat knew that she belongs SC community. It was correct that she told police that brother of the Rajat Gupta commit suicide due to love affairs which was told to her by Shweta. Shweta had also not informed about her relationship with Rajat Gupta to her family. It was correct that due to lapse of time she forget some facts of the case which was recorded by IO in her statement. Witness correctly identify the accused.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 16 of 86 During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-6 deposed that her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 22.09.2018 Ex. PW6/DB was recorded by the IO.
PW-7 Sh. Balwant Rai deposed that he retired from Government office. He was Additional SP in UP police and he had retired in the year 2016 in the month of July. He knew Sh. Jagdish Chandra who was the complainant in the present matter for the past 10-15 years since he resides in the same colony as mine. Sh. Jagdish Chandra has 5 children and the youngest child/daughter was named Shweta who worked somewhere in Delhi. He was told by Sh. Jagdish Chandra that he belonged to chamar caste which was a scheduled caste. He was enquired about the matter by the police and his statement was recorded by the police.
During cross examination on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused PW-7 deposed that he belongs to caste Dhobi. It was correct that there was another person namely Sh. Jagdish Chandra who was the Ex MLA and also a Doctor by profession in his area. Aforesaid person whose name was also Jagdish Chandra also belongs to chamar caste and was from the same caste as that of complainant. He did not know if aforesaid two persons that is the complainant and Ex MLA Jagdish Chander are relative. He used to know the family of the complainant and his father as they were living in the same colony as mine. He was having his native FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 17 of 86 village at District Hamir Pur, UP. He had been residing at his aforesaid address since 2009. He was knowing the complainant Jagdish Chandra for past many years as stated above since he was also in police service and even he was. House of complainant Jagdish Chandra was about 4 houses away from mine.
PW-8 Inspt. Sunil Kumar Chandolia deposed that he was posted as SI at PS Govindpuri. He had received a PCR call vide DD No.38A and attested copy of the same was Ex. PW8/A. He alongwith beat staff Ct Rajjo reached at spot at 3rd floor of place of occurrence. He did not remember the complete address of the house but house situated in Gali no.8 Govindpuri, Delhi. He had seen that one girl was found hanging with ceiling fan in her flat situated on 3rd floor in the hall of flat. He had informed the crime team. After some time crime team reached at spot and inspected the place of occurrence by the crime team and photographer had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. One suicide note was also found at the spot and photograph of the suicide note was also taken by the photographer. The photographs was Mark A2 (Colly) respectively. He had moved the dead body from the fan with ligature material with the help of resident residing at second floor of place of occurrence and other beat staff who had also reached at the spot. Dead body of the girl sent to the AIIMS Hospital with the ligature material through Ct. Rajjo. He met room mate of the deceased namely Yashika at spot and she was present alongwith FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 18 of 86 one colleague namely Manish when he reached at the spot. Yashika had handed over him suicide note of the deceased namely Sweta Verma and she had identified the handwriting of the deceased namely Sweta Verma and confirmed that suicide note was written in the handwriting of the deceased. Yashika had also handed over a register which was lying in the room of deceased namely Sweta Verma and a pen was also handed over. Yashika also handed over the dual sim mobile phone of deceased namely Sweta Verma at spot. The dual sim mobile phone was lying in the said room of the deceased namely Sweta Verma. He had seized the above said dual sim mobile phone white/ golden color and he had mentioned the IMEI number in the seizure memo. The seizure memo of above dual sim mobile phone was Ex.PW8/B. Yashika had also signed the seizure memo. He also prepared seizure memo of suicide note, register and pen and same was Ex. PW8/C. Yashika had stated that the page of suicide note was of the above said register. The copy of suicide note of deceased namely Sweta Verma already Ex.PW3/A and the original suicide note was now Ex. PW8/P1 which was found at the spot. He had informed the parents of the deceased namely Sweta Verma who was resided at Lucknow. He had deposited the above said seized articles in the malkhana. The suicide note was placed in the file. On next day on 18.06.2017, the father and brother of the deceased namely Sweta Verma alongwith their relatives came at police station. He had informed about the incident to the father and relative of deceased namely Sweta Verma. Thereafter, they went mortuary of AIIMS Hospital where dead body of FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 19 of 86 the deceased namely Sweta Verma was preserved. Father namely Jagdish and brother of the deceased had identified the dead body in the mortuary. He recorded the statement of Jagdish Chandra and Ankit Verma regarding identification of dead body and same was Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D respectively. The postmortem of the dead body of deceased Sweta Verma got conducted and dead body of the deceased handed over to father of deceased namely Jagdish Chandra vide receipt Ex. PW8/E. He also collected scene of the crime team report alongwith above said photographs. Crime team report prepared by HC Sohan Singh. He had received the sealed parcel of viscera and sealed parcel of the ligature material with sample seal from Ct. Shish Ram who had collected the above said sealed parcel from doctor concerned of AIIMS Hospital and same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/F. After handing over the dead body to the father of the deceased they came back at the police station and he had deposited the above said seized parcel in the malkhana. On that day, receiving of dead body of the deceased the father, brother and relative of the deceased came at the police station in the evening time. Thereafter, he enquired of them. Thereafter, they reached at the spot on 19.06.2017, where the room mates of the deceased namely Yashika and one other girl she also residing at the same floor of the deceased. He did not remember the name of other girl. Yashika had informed that deceased Sweta Verma had a friendship with a boy and his name was Rajat Gupta was mentioned in suicide note. During the search of room one diary was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 20 of 86 found which was belong to deceased and same was handed over by the father of the deceased Jagdish Chandra to him and he stated that the diary was written by his daughter in her own handwriting and he had identified the hand writing of the deceased on the pages of the diary. The father of the deceased had also informed that he had no knowledge of friendship of her deceased daughter with that boy namely Rajat Gupta. He had seized the above said diary vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/G. He had taken the photocopy copy of six page of the diary and placed on file same is already mark as A1 (Colly). He had examined the witnesses. He had obtained the the mobile number of deceased Sweta and accused Rajat Gupta from Yashika and he had moved the application for collecting CDR for mobile number of deceased Sweta and accused Rajat Gupta. During enquiry which was conducted by him a complaint regarding SC/ST Act has been made by father of deceased Jagdish Chandra which was received in police station and the same was marked to him and allegation were also made in the complaint regarding SC/ST Act and SHO Inspt Sanjay Bharadwaj had endorsed the complaint and got registered the case. FIR was registered. The complaint was Ex. PW8/H. SHO had endorsed the complaint as per the contents of the complaint and got registered the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri. After registration of the case, investigation was marked to the ACP Suresh Pal DIU, South East District. He also collected the postmortem report and place in the file. He handed over the entire police file to him with the relevant seizure memo and all documents. On 04.11.2017, he visited at FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 21 of 86 the spot alongwith IO ACP Suresh Pal. IO had asked about the place of occurrence and he had shown the place of occurrence to the IO. During testimony witness was shown one white and golden color mobile phone make MI and after seeing the same witness has correctly identify the same. During testimony witness was shown one diary and spiral binding register of the deceased Shweta Verma and the same correctly identify by the witness. The aforesaid mobile phone was Ex.P1, diary was Ex.P2 and spiral binding register was Ex.P3. Witness was also shown one pen of make Reynolds which was Ex. P-4. PW-8 further deposed that during investigation he had also seized one suicide note produced by one Ms.Yashika Jajoriya and the suicide note of the deceased was already Ex.PW8/P1.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-8 deposed that it was correct that his statement recorded by the IO as it was deposed by him. He did not investigate the case. He deposed that he had conducted only Inquest after receiving PCR call vide DD No.38A. He did not do investigation of this case during 05.07.2017 to 03.11.2017. He did initial enquiry not investigation. Inspt. Sanjay Bharadwaj was the then SHO of PS Govindpuri, Delhi. It was correct that he filled up the form no.25 & 35 about the Inquest on the same day. He deposed that he did his signature on the Inquest form on 18.06.2017. It was correct that he had mentioned on the Inquest form name of the witness as Mithlesh and father of the deceased Jagdish who identified the dead body of the deceased. After finishing the complete Inquest at spot he came back to FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 22 of 86 police station at about 8-8:30pm. On 17.06.2017, he had sent the dead body to the AIIMS Hospital from the spot at about 05:05:30 pm. He took about three hours for conducting the enquiry at spot. It was correct that crime team prepared the scene of crime report at the spot that is place of occurrence. He did not remember whether scene of crime report was signed by crime team in his presence or not. He had seen the crime team report and same was attached with case file with Inquest proceeding. The complainant PW8/H was not signed by the complainant in his presence. He could not tell whether complainant had signed or not. He had pointed the place of occurrence to IO on 04.11.2017. He voluntarily deposed that the site plan was not prepared at his instance. During testimony witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW8/DA where it is so recorded. He got removed the dead body from the ceiling fan with the help of neighbour who residing at second floor of place of incident and police staff. On floor where the incident was occurred there was no person had present and one friend of deceased namely Yashika present but she was unable to help as she was shocked after seeing the deceased hanging position. Yashika told him that she can't see the deceased as she may conscious. He did not record the name and address who had removed the dead body from the ceiling fan. He had not received any complaint from the complainant before the lodging the FIR. He had no knowledge whether any complaint made by complainant prior to registration of the case. The complainant Ex.PW8/H was initially marked to him but he found the allegations pertaining to SC/ST FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 23 of 86 Act and that is why he handed over the said complaint to reader to inform the SHO accordingly. He voluntarily deposed that he had not conducted the investigation of this case. He did not remember the date when he had returned the complaint to SHO through reader. He did not remember date and time, when he returned the complaint to reader. The DD No.38A copy of the same Ex.PW8/A not mark to him by Inspt. Sanjay Bhardwaj. He voluntarily deposed that on that day he was on day emergency duty and as per turn same was marked to him by duty officer. It was correct that the copy of DD No.38A was not attested by him. He voluntarily deposed that same was recorded by DO ASI Inderjeet. It was correct that there is no marking on the DD entry by SHO Inspt. Sanjay Bhardwaj to him for making enquiry for necessary action. He could not tell at the time of incident who was SHO of PS Govindpuri, Delhi. He did not remember the name of DCP and ACP concerned at the time of incident. He did not remember the dimension of place of occurrence. He did not remember about the direction of the door of the flat. The place of occurrence situated about 700-800 meter from the main road in Gali No.8. He could not tell what was situated from East-West-South-North situated at the place of occurrence. He voluntarily deposed that a shop was situated in front of building of place of incident. The shop was a general store. He cannot tell the name of owner of above said shop. It may be possible that in front of place of occurrence a medical shop was situated. As per his memory the door of flat of place of occurrence was of wooden. The flat where the incident took place was of 2BHK. Again FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 24 of 86 said, he could not tell how many rooms was situated in the said flat but three girls was living in the said flat. There was no room buit-up outside of the above said flat where the incident had taken place. It was correct that he had stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that in one of the room which was towards the balcony, the friend of the deceased was staying and the deceased was staying in the other room and she had committed suicide in the drawing room/hall. It was correct that the name of the friend of the deceased was Neha Saluja. He did not know as to in which room friend of the deceased namely Yashika was residing. He had reached the spot within 10 minutes of receiving the 100 number call and upon reaching the spot around 03:00 pm he had informed the crime team around 03:15 pm. Crime team reached within 30-40 minutes of the information given by him. Crime team must have stayed at the spot for about half an hour. The spot was not videographed. He alongwith staff and some of the people from the neighbourhood were present near the spot when the crime team reached. He had only recorded the statement of friend of the deceased namely Neha at that time He had also recorded the statement of one person namely Manish Sharma at that time. The landlord of the house was not available when he had reached the spot. He did not know what was the distance between the house of the land lord and the place where the incident had occurred. It was correct that the deceased had committed suicide in the hall/drawing room and not in her own room where she was living. Document/complaint Ex.PW8/H was handed over to him by the reader of the SHO concerned and upon FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 25 of 86 reading the contents he found it to be pertaining to SC/ST Act and therefore, he had handed over back to the reader and informed the same to the SHO concerned. The complaint Ex.PW8/H was marked to him but he had returned the same to the SHO concerned since he was not entitled to investigate the matter under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He did not know as to after how long he had returned the complaint Ex.PW8/H to the SHO. He did not remember if he had returned the same after four months. When the case was registered the SHO concerned was Inspt. Sanjay Bhardwaj. It was correct that on the date of incident Manish Sahrma had given a complaint/statement to him which was Ex.PW8/DB. Jagdish Chand S/o Sh. Jhamman Lal, brother of the deceased namely Ankit and witness Balwant had met him in the police station and they did not handed over any complaint to him in the police station. The father and brother of the deceased and other relatives met him three to four time after the incident, but they did not hand over any written complaint to him. It was correct that in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. I had stated to the IO that during enquiry friends/room partner of the deceased namely Neha and Yashika had disclosed to him that they were knowing about the friendship between the deceased and accused. It was also correct that he had also stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that upon enquiry the family members of the deceased had disclosed that they were unaware about the friendship between the deceased and accused Rajat Gupta and were not aware about anything. He had recorded the fact regarding the examination of the brother Ankit Verma FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 26 of 86 of the deceased during the Inquest which was already Ex.PW8/D. It was correct that he had disclosed in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C that during enquiry witness Manish Sharma had through his complaint Ex.PW8/DB told him that he alongwith Yashika who was the friend of deceased worked in the same company and on the day of incident upon receiving a call from the landlord he tried to knock on the main door of the house but when the same was not opened he entered into the premises from the other door towards the balcony area and saw that the decease Sweta was hanging from the ceiling fan. During testimony witness was shown his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. from which it could be gathered that when he reached the spot he had met Yashika and Manish. Court observed that the statement of witness recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. after perusal shows that witness Yashika and Manish was present at the spot. He had stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the dead body was sent for postmortem with staff and have not stated the name of Ct. Rajjo. Though he had stated the name of Ct. Rajjo in his testimony recorded before the Court. He had seized the document Ex.PW8/P1 and Ex. PW3/A from the spot. He had only conducted the inquest proceedings and after completion of postmortem report and other documents received till then and seized from the spot were later handed over to next IO ACP Suresh Pal, but he did not know when he had handed over the same to ACP Suresh Pal. All the documents pertaining to the present matter were with him in the file till the time documents pertaining to postmortem was received and the same was remained with FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 27 of 86 him. The diary of the deceased which was seized was deposited at malkhana. Before the crime team reached the spot no public person was allowed to enter the spot.
PW-9 ACP Sanjay Bhardwaj deposed that on 17.06.2017, he had received one information at the police station regarding hanging of one Shweta Verma vide DD No.38A which was already Ex. PW8/A. Upon receiving the same, the investigation of the same was marked to SI Sunil Kumar Chandolia to conduct the inquest proceedings. Thereafter, a written complaint was received at the police station on 05.07.2017 from Sh. Jagdish Chand. Upon which he had endorsed and rukka was prepared and FIR in the present matter got registered. The rukka was Ex.PW9/A. The investigation of the present matter was marked to ACP Suresh Pal upon the directions of senior Officers DCP South East.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused PW-9 deposed that the complaint already Ex.PW8/H was given by the complainant at the concerned police station and thereafter received by him. The complaint Ex.PW8/H was marked to SI S K Chandolia on 05.07.2017. The rukka was prepared on the same day i.e. 04.11.2017 and FIR was registered on 04.11.2017. the investigation during the period 05.07.2017 to 04.11.2017 was handled by SI S K Chandolia. He did not know if any complaint was filed against him by the complainant in respect to the present matter before the Court for registration of FIR in FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 28 of 86 the present matter. He had been instructed verbally by the concerned DCP in the present matter to mark the investigation to ACP Sh. Suresh Pal. He did not know the exact investigation conducted by SI S K Chandolia between 05.07.2017 to 04.11.2017.
PW-10 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 04.11.2017, he was working as a duty officer at PS Govindpuri from 4 pm to 12 night. On that day, the then SHO Inspt Sanjay Bhardwaj handed over a rukka after endorsement on the complaint for registration of the case. He endorsed the rukka. His endorsement was Ex.PW10/A. He recorded the computerized FIR and same was Ex.PW10/B. After registration of case, investigation marked to ACP Suresh Pal. He had issued certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence which was Ex.PW10/C. He handed over the complaint/rukka and FIR to the IO/ACP Suresh Pal.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-10 deposed that he recorded each word of the complainant and rukka in the FIR. He received rukka from the then SHO Inspt. Sanjay Bhardwaj at about 08:10 pm. On 04.11.2017, he received the rukka and on that day, he recorded the FIR. The complaint was not received by him before lodging the FIR, he had received the same from the Inspt. Sanjay Bhardwaj on 04.11.2017. Before 04.11.2017, he had never received the complaint Ex.PW8/H. He did not know who was the ACP of jurisdiction of PS Govindpuri at the time of incident. He could not tell prior to registration FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 29 of 86 of the case whether any complaint received at police station or not. IO had marked the investigation to ACP Suresh Pal as per direction of the then SHO.
PW-11 HC Rajjo Singh Meena deposed that on 17.06.2017, he was posted as Ct. at PS Govindpuri. On that day, he joined the investigation alongwith SI Sunil after receiving an information regarding suicide and they reached at H.No.894, Gali No.8, 3rd Floor, Govindpuri, Delhi. When they saw that one girl was found hanging from the ceiling fan by stole/chunni. During enquiry, the person present at the place of incident, they disclosed the name of the girl as Sweta Verma permanent resident of H.No.277, Sector H, Lucknow, U.P. SI Sunil called the crime team at spot and the crime team reached at spot and photographer of crime team taken the photograph of deceased girl from different angle at hanging position. They got down the deceased from the ceiling fan with the help of public persons and taken to the AIIMS Hospital, Delhi and admitted in the hospital where Doctor written as brought dead on the MLC of the deceased girl. The dead body of the deceased shifted to AIIMS Mortuary. Thereafter, he came back at the spot. One girl namely Yashika met them at the spot and she handed over a suicide note and diary alongwith Pen to the IO and she identified the writing on the suicide note and stated that suicide note was int eh writing of Sweta and Yashika handed over one mobile phone to IO which belongs to deceased Sweta. Above said articles/items seized by the IO with the seizure FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 30 of 86 memo. On 04.11.2017, after registration of case, his statement was recorded by ACP Suresh Pal.
During examination, the photographs already attached with the judicial file and already marked as Mark A2 (Colly) shown to the witness and witness identified that same photographs were taken by photographer.
During cross examination on behalf of respondent PW-11 deposed that after receiving the information, he went to the spot with SI Sunil Kumar and present with him at spot. He was present at the spot alongwith SI Sunil Kumar till the dead body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary. He did not remember the time when the dead body was sent to AIIMS Hospital from the spot. He did not remember the time when SI Sunil called crime team at spot. He could not tell the time, when crime team reached at spot after reaching them at spot. He could not tell the approximate time when the crime team reached at spot. SI Sunil Kumar inspected the place of occurrence before reaching the crime team at spot. He did not remember if the suicide note was found by SI Sunil Kumar before the crime team reached. He did not remember, if the suicide note was handed over to the police on the day of incident. He voluntarily deposed that the suicide note was handed over by another girl/room mate of the deceased to the IO and she had stated to IO that the same was in the hand writing of the deceased. He could not tell the exact number of people who helped in getting the dead body of deceased from the fan. The IO had found one diary which was belonging to the deceased from the spot. IO had seized FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 31 of 86 the diary and one suicide note handed over by another girl/room mate of the deceased. The seizure memo was seized by preparing the same but I do not know where the IO had kept it. He had not got the postmortem of the deceased conducted at AIIMS Hospital.
During cross examination witness was asked following questions:-
Q.1 Did you take with you form no.25-35(1)(B) form pertaining to death report/unnatural death by violence at the time of depositing the dead body of deceased to AIIMS Hospital?
Ans. No. Vol. I had handed over the form for request to keep the MLC dead body in mortuary till the conduction of postmortem which is now Ex.PW11/A bearing my signature at point A. I had not got the postmortem of the deceased conducted He did not remember the number of rooms of the house where the deceased died. "
PW-12 Inspt. Pravin Kumar deposed that on 27.05.2018, he was posted as SI at DIU SED. On that day, as per directions of IO, he went to Kanpur and met Smt. Geeta sister of the deceased Sweta Verma and recorded her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. thereafter on 28.05.2018, he went to Lucknow where he met with Sh. Jagdish Chandra father of the deceased and Mithlesh and Ankit brothers of the deceased and recorded the statement of Sh. Jagdish Chandra and Ankit Verma U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 22.09.2018, he went to Kanpur where he met with Ruchi FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 32 of 86 Tripathi friend of the deceased and recorded her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he came back to Delhi. His statement was recorded by the IO.
During cross examination on behalf of respondent PW-12 deposed that he recorded the statement as it is which were given by the witnesses. It was correct that he recorded the statement of Smt. Geeta in which she told that she had a video conferencing call with her sister Shweta Verma (deceased) in which she was looking happy. She also revealed that she doesn't know the reason behind her suicide. Statement of witness Smt. Geeta sister of the deceased recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was Ex.PW12/A and statement of witness Ankit Verma (brother of the deceased) recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was Ex.PW12/B and statement of witness Jagdish Chandra (father of the deceased) recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was Ex.PW12/C and statement of witness Ruchi Tripathi (friend of the deceased) recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. already Ex.PW6/DB. It was correct that police station Govindpuri was under the jurisdiction of Sub Division Kalkaji and under the administrative control of Sub Division ACP.
PW-13 (Retd.) ACP Suresh Pal deposed that on 04.11.2017, he was posted as ACP DIU SE District. On that day, as per direction of DCP South East, Delhi. The investigation of present case was mark to him. He collected the file from the record clerk DIU South East. He had gone through the file. He call SI Sunil Kumar who was the initial IO of the present case and he also called the lady Ct. Rajjo from PS Govindpuri.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 33 of 86 He had examined them and their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by him. Next day, i.e. 05.11.2017, he called the initial IO SI Sunil at spot and Yashika Jajaria (room mate of the deceased) and Manish Sharma (friends of the deceased) and examined them and recorded their statement. He had examined the place of occurrence. On the spot, one suicide note which was already annexed with the police file was shown to witness Yashika Jajaria who after seeing the handwriting verified the same to be that of deceased as she had seen the deceased writing as they were room mates. Thereafter, he had also served notice to the employer of the deceased at Trade India where the deceased was employed. He had sought appointment letter and other documents pertaining to the deceased from her employer/company and annexed the same with the record. He was also informed by the employer that no hand written documents of the deceased were in their possession as all the work in the company was computerized and online. He also collected the particulars of account of the deceased which was provided by Administrative Office of TradeIndia.com and same was Ex.PW13/A. He also collected the signature of the account holder alongwith copy of the PAN card and account opening form from HDFC Bank. Photocopy of the same was Mark X (Colly). The caste certificate of Jagdish Chandra (father of the deceased) was seized in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/B. The photocopy of certificate of Jagdish Chandra was Mark Y. He had sent the above said certificate for verification to the Tehsildar, Etawah, UP and the same was not received back verified as FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 34 of 86 the record was not available. He also collected the caste certificate of deceased Shweta Verma from Sh. Jagdish Chandra and the same was seized in this case vide memo Ex.PW13/C. He had sent the said certificate for verification and received the verification report from Tehsildar that the above said certificate was not issued from their office. Report of Tehsildar was Ex.PW13/D. He recorded the statement of Sh.Jagdish Chandra and some of the neighbourer of father of the deceased namely Sh. Balwant Rai. He had sent the sealed parcel of the exhibits to the FSL. Subsequently, he collected the FSL report and filed the same with the chargesheet. The report was already admitted and Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 respectively. He collected the CDR of mobile phone of deceased and accused and placed in file. CDR of accused and deceased already admitted and Ex.A4 (Colly). He also collected the whatsapp chat between the accused and the deceased. The same was annexed with police file and he had not filed the same with the chargesheet. He recorded the statement of Yashika Jajaria and Ruchi Tripathi. He had given the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to HDFC Bank to provide documents and bank information of bank account of deceased Shweta Verma. Same were placed on file. The seizure memo of above said document and information of bank account was not prepared by him and the same was placed in the file. After completion of investigation he had prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court. Accused had joined the investigation and witness has correctly identify the accused.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 35 of 86 During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-13 deposed that he have filed the chargesheet after going through the contents of the each documents. He had not verified the fact regarding the marital status of the deceased from her family members, friends or neighbourers. It was correct that he had prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Sunil Kumar. He had prepared the site plan on 05.11.2017 at the instance of SI Sunil Kumar. The site plan prepared by him was not on judicial record. He had mentioned about the complaint Ex.PW8/H in the CD. He had seen the scene of crime team report. As per the scene of crime team report which is annexed with judicial file shows that the scene of crime at H.No.894, Second Floor Gali No.8, Govindpuri, New Delhi. During cross examination, the crime team report was put to the witness and he admits that the same was annexed with judicial record with chargesheet and the same was Ex.PW13/D1. It was correct that death summary report dated 17.06.2017 annexed with judicial file alongwith postmortem was filed by me and the same was Ex.PW13/D2. Upon seeing the same, the witness submits that the persons who had identified the dead body were Sh. Jagdish Chandra and Sh. Mithlesh Kumar. He was handed over the mobile phone of deceased by SI Sunil Kumar. The above mobile phone of deceased was received from Malkhana in sealed condition which was seized by SI Sunil Kumar vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/D. He had sent the above said mobile phone in sealed condition through Ct Mukesh Kumar to deposit the same in FSL Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 36 of 86 PW-13 was shown FSL report already admitted and Ex.A2 (Colly) and as per the same it has been mentioned that an unsealed parcel (mobile phone) make MI was received. He had sent the forwarding note with the aforesaid mobile phone to the FSL. During cross examination witness has seen the judicial note and no such forwarding note was available. He did not remember if he had taken any seizure memo from the IO SI Sunil Kumar when the same was handed over to him. The seizure memo of mobile phone was available on record. However, it was not mention if the mobile phone at the time of seizure was sealed by the IO on 17.06.2017 Ex.PW8/B. He was handed over the suicide note from SI Sunil Kumar and the same was only one. It was correct that the incident had happened on 17.06.2017 and FIR in the present matter was registers on 04.11.2017. It was correct that a complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the family/father of the deceased before the Special Court dealing with SC/ST matters and during the pendency before the court the present FIR was registered. The pen drive attached with judicial record which was Ex.PW13/D3 contains all the whatsapp chat which was received from FSL with the FSL report annexed with judicial record. He was told by the FSL that he should give them a pen drive so that all the data of the phone of the deceased could be transferred into pen drive. He had annexed the whatsapp chat from the pen drive by taking out prints and the same was annexed with police file and he had not filed the same with judicial record. It was correct that he had placed on record the photocopy of the hand written diary notes of the deceased which was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 37 of 86 obtained from the original diary of the deceased and sent to FSL for opinion. The pages of the same are already Mark A1 (Colly) and the same was Ex.PW13/D4 original register of the deceased was already Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. IO/Inspt. Sunil Kumar has clarified that the original register of victim was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/C and the same being case property was in malkhana and was produced in original during the testimony of PW-8 Inspt. Sunil Kumar himself. He did not investigate whether the already seized mobile phone was proper tagged sealed, labelled or not. It was correct that deceased was residing in a tenanted flat. He did not remember whether he had received the file for further investigation from SI Sunil Kumar. The suicide note and further documents were already lying with the file. On 04.11.2017, he had received the file from the office for further investigation, during office hours and his duty was almost for the entire day and there was no fix hours. The complaint Ex.PW8/H which was the written complaint of the complainant was already annexed with the file. He voluntarily deposed that the same was annexed with the file and therefore, being the part of the file he did not separately verified the GD number in this regard.
During cross examination witness was asked following questions:-
Q.1 What all documents were handed over to you alongwith FIR? Court observation:- The witness has already clarified regarding the investigation conducted by him in his examination in chief and the time when the further investigation was received by him. The question is FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 38 of 86 being disallowed as being irrelevant.
The witness Yashika Jajoria had identified the handwriting of the deceased upon being shown the suicide note Ex.PW3/A. There was only one suicide note of the deceased.
Q.2 Did you verify regarding the seizure memos received by you alognwith the file, if there was any public witness who had signed the same?
Court observation:- Question is disallowed as the seizure memo pertaining to suicide note was prepared by PW8.
The statement of witness Ruchi Tripathi on 22.09.2018 and the same was recorded by SI Praveen Kumar, DIU South East District. I had examined witness Ruchi Tripathi in the present matter but I do not remember the date of the same.
Q.3 Did you verify the documents Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/P1 and Ex.PW8/C which were received by you in the present matter? Court observation: The question is disallowed as the same were seized by witness PW8.
Q.4 Can you justify the reason for delay of registration of FIR in the present matter which was registered on 04.11.2017 i.e. when the incident occurred on 17.06.2017?
Ans. Since, after the demise of the deceased the inquest was conducted and other proceedings took time by SI Sunil Kumar and therefore, the FIR was registered on 04.11.2007. I have not mentioned regarding the aforesaid delay in the chargesheet filed by me.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 39 of 86 It was correct that he had mentioned in the chargesheet that the accused had visited the house of deceased at 14:03:28 hrs. He had met witness Balwant Rai once during investigation. He had met the father of the deceased namely Jagdish Chandra around 3-4 times during investigation. He had met witness Dr. Jagdish S/o Jhaman Lal once during investigation. He did not prepare the site plan of place of incident. PW- 13 further deposed that during in his cross examination he had inadvertently deposed that he had prepared the site plan on 05.11.2017.
It was correct that in the statement of witness Inspt. Sunil Kumar recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. already Ex.PW8/DA, he had mentioned that he had visited the place of incident and at the instance of Inspt. Sunil Kumar prepared the site plan and he wish to clarify that he had visited the spot with Inspt. Sunil Kumar but had not prepared any site plan at his instance.
9. After examination all prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
10. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he denied and the deceased was already married prior to his having relationship with her. He had never instigated or abetted her for commission of suicide. The deceased was habitual of black mailing him and on several occasion prior to her death told him that she will commit suicide and even FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 40 of 86 threatened him and his family members with dire consequences. On the day of her death she had asked him to visit her and when he refused she also showed him her suicide note and the ligature material by which she would commit suicide and when he refused to visit her or listen to her and he thought when he should go and meet the deceased. When he reached at the house of the deceased, the door of the house was locked and despite knocking she did not opened the door and thereafter, he made several calls and messages to the deceased but she did not take his call. After that he left her house from outside around 02:15 pm. On the next day in the evening he came to know that deceased had committed the suicide. The complainant had suicidal tendency and therefore she committed suicide. Deceased used to often write suicide notes and material by which she would commit suicide and threatened me with dire consequences even prior to her death. Deceased had also told him that the fact pertaining to her marriage with one person namely Alok was not known to her family and due to the same her family was insisting her to get married and therefore, she used to remain disturb.
11.After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
12.Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 41 of 86 "While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
13. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 42 of 86 shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be discarded.
14. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It has been argued that the testimony of the witnesses does not inspire confidence and is liable to be rejected as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued that PW1 Abdul Vakil who had worked in the company of the deceased has not deposed anything against the accused and in fact has stated that the deceased was under
family pressure to get married and had even applied for 15 days leave for marriage negotiations and was stressed, and therefore, it could be said that she committed suicide. It has further been argued that PW-2 Ms. Geeta who is the sister of the complainant has also stated that she was not aware about any relationship between the deceased and the accused and it is only later after the demise of the deceased she came to know regarding accused Rajat Gupta, and therefore, even the aforesaid witness did not depose regarding any kind of pressure created on the mind of the deceased due to any of the act of accused. It has also been argued that Ankit Verma PW3 who was the brother of the deceased also deposed that he had never met the accused and did not know if the accused had pressurized the deceased in any manner, and the aforesaid witness had only identified the hand writing of the deceased. It has also been argued that the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 43 of 86 are hear say in nature as PW4 Jagdish Chandra was the neighbourer who had not seen or knew about the incident and PW5 Manish Sharma was the person who had reached the place of incident and had opened the door but did not make call to the police and was not knowing the deceased or the accused and also that accused and the deceased were not working in the same company. It has also been argued that the IO in the present matter has not conducted the investigation fairly in the present matter and had kept the matter pending from the date of incident i.e. 17.06.2017 till registration of FIR In present matter on 04.11.2017 and did not verify regarding the truth of the present matter. It has also been argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and is liable to be acquitted.
15.Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab CA No.1135/2016 (2016 8 SCR
741):-
"28. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 44 of 86 More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts 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 transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and 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."
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 45 of 86 with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 46 of 86 establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.
32. The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our considered opinion, does not demonstrate with unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other implicated in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above provisions so as to return an unassailable finding of their culpability under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record, to reiterate, do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries.
33. In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 47 of 86 contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case."
16. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied upon judgment in the case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. The Inspt. Of Police, Kancheepuran District & Anr. CA 4269/2024
14. What turns out primarily from the sequence of events, statements and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the actual date of suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever either in person or by phone or any other means between the deceased or his relatives and his wife or any of the other accused which would indicate continuous harassment or torture or any sort of pressure at the hands of the accused Appellants on the deceased. Therefore, there is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the incident of suicide having taken place. Otherwise also the contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any active or direct act which can be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no option but to push the deceased into a position that FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 48 of 86 he committed suicide. From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of suicide. Merely on the Criminal Appeal No(s). 4268-4269 of 2024 Page 8 of 12 basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in the present case. It involves a mental process of instigating a person and without a positive act on the part of the Appellants which can be said to either to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot be said to have been present.
15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 49 of 86 conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State represented by its inspector of Police)"
17. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied upon judgment in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of Bengal 2010 1 SCC 707 "13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 50 of 86 In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts 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 transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and 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."
14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797, this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 51 of 86 of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate"
literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence." [See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52]
15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 52 of 86 harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression `abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 53 of 86 provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause `thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
18. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied upon following judgments in support of his arguments
a). Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal CA No.359/2005 (2002) 2 SCC 659
b). Wazir Chand & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (1989) 1 SCC 244
c). Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710
d). Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors. CA No.2340/2023
e). Chandrashekhar Shivhare & Anr. Vs. Intelligence Office CA No.808/2023
f). Ramchandra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar CA No.352/2020
g). State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh dated 23.02.2005 in CA No.1179/1999
h). Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. Passed in CA No.4226/2012 I). Sate of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Ors. In CA No.2181/2009 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 54 of 86
19. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for State that the testimony of all the witnesses is corroborated in all nature and there is no contradiction and all the evidence placed on record by the prosecution substantiate the charge against the accused. It has also been argued that complainant could not be examined in the present matter as he had expired but the other family members of the deceased had been examined who had stated that the deceased was in relationship with the accused and has identified the suicide note of the deceased wherein she had categorically mentioned that she was committing suicide as it was the accused who after having relationship with her for three years has refused for solemnizing marriage as she belong to a schedule caste. It has been argued that the testimony of all the witnesses point out towards the guilt of the accused and that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted.
20.I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused persons, Ld. Addl. PP for State and gone through the evidence available on record.
THE OFFENCE
21. Section 306 IPC states that :-
306 Abetment of Suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 55 of 86 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
22.Therefore, to constitute an offence U/s 306 IPC it is required that (1) the deceased committed suicide, (2) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide (committing suicide by itself is a crime); (3) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary.
23.In Ramesh Kumar & State of Chhatisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 it was held that "where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred, In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that -
1. the accused kept on irritating of annoying the deceased by words , deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction, and
2. that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 56 of 86
24. It may be mentioned that there is a marked difference between "intimidatory statement" and "instigatory statement". "Intimidatory" statements may give rise to two types of consequences, (a) either the person to whom such statements are made may be frightened and may be on receiving end he may be angry enough to retaliate whereas (b) instigatory statement falls within the category of goading, provoking etc. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
25. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, "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. Abetment of suicide is punishable under this section and attempt to commit suicide, under section 309. It is an act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. Every act of self-destruction is suicide, provided it be intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequences of what he is doing. Suicide no doubt is self murder. But one committing suicide places himself or herself beyond the reach of the law, and necessarily beyond the reach of any punishment too. But it does not follow that it is not forbidden by of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 57 of 86 Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide.
26. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea it 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.
27. In the case of M Mohan Vs. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626 the Apex Court held that "there should be some live link, or a proximate link between the act of the accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide" . Conviction for abetment merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable.
28. As per Section 107 IPC abetment means, "a person abets the doing of a thing when he or she, inter alia, instigates any person to do that thing. The other modes of abetment besides instigation are conspiracy and intentional aid. The word "instigation" literally means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. It is something more than co-operation. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 58 of 86 commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Instigation to commit suicide means goading, provoking inciting, urging or encouraging to commit suicide. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation, a woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment.
29.The law settled by the judgment of Apex Court in the case titled as Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 742/2020 decided on 27.11.2020 by Hon'ble Apex Court , it has been held that :-
(ii) The spouse of the informant had not received payment for the work which was carried out by him, as a result of which he was under mental pressure and that he committed suicide by hanging on 5 May 2018. It has been submitted that on the face of it, there is no basis in the FIR to even remotely implicate the appellant in the alleged offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. There is not even an indication of a personal interaction or connection between the appellant and the deceased. Furthermore, a civil suit regarding the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 59 of 86 disputed debt between their companies is pending. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC is in support of two distinct reliefs. The first relief is for a writ of habeas corpus. This relief has been claimed on the basis that the arrest and consequent detention of the appellant was due to a reinvestigation which was commenced after placing reliance on the letter dated 26 May 2020 of the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra to the Director General of Police. The submission is that once the CJM accepted the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and issued an A' summary on 16 April 2019, it was not open to the Investigating Officer to commence a reinvestigation without judicial sanction.
Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 of the IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide ―whoever abets the commission of such suicide‖ shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years17. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V of the IPC, which is titled ―Of Abetment‖. Section 107 provides:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 60 of 86 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 willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
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.
PART I cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
In Amalendu Pal vs State of West Bengal22, Justice Mukundakam Sharma, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:
PART I ―12...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 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 61 of 86 suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there 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.‖ The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they ―must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide‖.
Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra), ―literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything‖. In S S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan23, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, observed:
―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 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 62 of 86 suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.‖ 48 Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat24 was specifically a case which arose in the context of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC where the High Court had dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(B) of the IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the accused-appellant. In the decision of a two judge Bench of this Court, delivered by Justice V S Sirpurkar, the test laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) was applied and the Court held:
―10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 63 of 86 We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.‖ Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 64 of 86 the Court observed:
PART I ―12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.‖ The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and ―cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide‖. Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed."
In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause (supra), the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations:
―458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 65 of 86 have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC.‖ 50 More recently in M Arjunan vs State (represented by its Inspector of Police)25, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R.Banumathi, elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations:
―7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC 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 the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.‖ 51 Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 66 of 86 in Ude Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana26, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms:
―38. 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.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 67 of 86
39. 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 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 68 of 86 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.‖ Similarly, in Rajesh vs State of Haryana27, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows:
―9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there 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. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 69 of 86 convicted under Section 306 IPC.‖ In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab28, a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus:
―15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.‖ 52 In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.29, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8 August 2017.
His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work from 10 AM to 10 PM and even at FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 70 of 86 odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed. 53 On the other hand, we must also notice the decision in Praveen Pradhan (supra) where a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The suicide note which was left behind by the deceased showed, as this Court observed, that the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, who was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 71 of 86 compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at the workplace, which hurt his self- respect tremendously.‖ The Court noted that the appellant always scolded the deceased and tried to always force the deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed:
―19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non- fulfilment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, ―had there been any other person in his place, he would have FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 72 of 86 certainly committed suicide‖ is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 420 of 2006, decided on 5-1-2012 (Utt)] of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.‖ The contents of the FIR therefore indicated that the deceased had been subjected to harassment persistently and continuously and this was coupled by words used by the accused which led to the commission of suicide.
54 In Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao Bhagat30, this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482. This was a case where the FIR was registered pursuant to the information received from the appellant. The FIR stated that the son and daughter-in-law of the appellant were teachers in Zila Parishad School. The respondent used to call the daughter-in-law of the appellant on the phone and used to harass her. Moreover, despite the efforts of the son of the appellant, the respondent did not desist from FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 73 of 86 doing so. This Court noted:
12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide.
At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent.‖ The above observations of the Court clearly indicated that there was a specific allegation in the FIR bearing on the imputation that the respondent had actively facilitated the commission of suicide by continuously harassing the spouse of the victim and in failing to rectify his conduct despite the FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 74 of 86 efforts of the victim. 55 Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him‖. The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues‖. Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage since the High Court is still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction when seized FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 75 of 86 of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage. 56 The petition before the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima facie been established. As a FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 76 of 86 consequence of its failure to perform its function under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider the appellant's application for bail. In considering such an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power."
30. Also it has been held in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police Criminal Appeal No.551/2012 dated 29.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that:
20. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and it 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; 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 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 77 of 86 Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation' to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment.
22. 'Instigation' is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh2, a three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger uttered- 'You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like'. Thereafter, the wife committed suicide. The Court, after examining the meaning of instigation which is an FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 78 of 86 essential element for abetment of suicide, observed that such words, uttered out of emotion, do not constitute mens rea and do not amount to intentionally inciting the other party to actually do an act which may result in the commission of self-killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3 and it was observed as under:
"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 FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 79 of 86 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 disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide."
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 80 of 86 broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide.
DECISION
31. In the present matter, it is the case of the prosecution that 17.06.2017, information was received vide DD No.38A regarding commission fo suicide by one girl at Gali No.8, H.No.894, Govindpuri, Opposite Sahara Property. Upon receiving the aforesaid information IO SI Sunil alongwith staff reached the spot and found that one girl (deceased Shweta Verma) was found hanging from the ceiling fan by a stole/chunni. IO inspected the spot with the help of crime team and the deceased was sent to AIIMS Hospital. From the spot IO seized a diary, FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 81 of 86 mobile phone, suicide note, register and pen of the deceased which was handed over to him by one room mate of the deceased namely Yashika Jhajoria Thereafter, information was sent to the family of deceased. Subsequently, the family of the deceased, file a complaint before the concerned police station on 05.07.2017, which was received vide DD No.48B and upon the same the FIR in the present matter was only registered on 04.11.2017 and the investigation was marked to concerned ACP as there were allegation pertaining to offence under the SC/ST Act.
32.The suicide note which was Ex.PW8/P1, mentions as below: - " Dear Papa : - today, I committing suicide. Because I am not happy with my life. And Rajat Gupta and his family is responsible for all this. They denied for marriage because I am SC. And Rajat Gupta have used me for three years and now I am frustrated from my life. And forcefully I have to do this."
33. Subsequently, the IO examined the witnesses and after preparation of chargesheet filed before the court. Prosecution cited as many as 25 witnesses in the present matter. Complainant Jagdish Chandra who was the father of the deceased could not appear before the court as he expired during trial and was dropped from the list of witnesses. Further, witness Yashika Jhajoria also did not appear before the court despite several process as she has shifted abroad and was dropped from the list of witnesses. Some of the witnesses were dropped after proceedings U/s FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 82 of 86 294 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in the present matter. From the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it can be ascertained that the deceased was living in Delhi and was employed in a company namely TradeIndia.com wherein other witnesses namely PW1 Abdul Vakil, PW5 Sumit, PW6 Ruchi Tripathi were also employed. The aforesaid co-workers of the deceased were examined by the prosecution but none of the witnesses deposed that they were aware about any relationship between the deceased and the accused and infact PW1 Abdul Vakil, PW5 Sumit, PW6 Ruchi Tripathi have categorically stated that they were not aware about the accused Rajat Gupta to have promised the deceased for marriage and had never met accused Rajat Gupta while the deceased was alive. PW4 Manish Sharma was the witness who was known to the friend of the deceased namely Yashika Jhajoria and on the day of incident that is 17.06.2017 upon asking of Yashika Jhajoria had reached the premises on the third floor where he found that the door of the house was closed and upon opening the same found that the deceased was hanging from the ceiling fan by chunni and meanwhile, Yashika Jhajoria raised alarm and was shocked upon which somebody made a call to the police and police enquired from them and their statement was recorded. The aforesaid witness also stated that he was not aware about any relationship between the accused and the deceased and that both accused and the deceased were not employed in the company of PW4. The family members of the deceased namely PW2 Geeta being the sister was FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 83 of 86 examined who also stated that she was not aware about any relationship between the accused and the deceased. However, PW3 Ankit Verma being the brother of the deceased deposed that the deceased had informed him about her friendship with accused Rajat Gupta, but it was only after his sister committed suicide that he came to know that she was in love affair with the accused. The aforesaid witness identified the handwriting of the deceased and deposed that he had never met the accused Rajat Gupta and had only seen the photograph of the accused in the mobile phone of the deceased. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution was the formal witnesses being the police officials who conducted the investigation in the present matter. Prima facie it can be observed that the investigation in the present matter was conducted with delay as despite the fact that the information regarding suicide was received in the police station on 17.06.2017, the FIR in the present matter was not registered till 04.11.2017 and it is only when the family of the deceased filed a complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. The police witnesses examined by the prosecution on many aspects showed ignorance regarding the investigation conducted and the IO did not specify regarding the investigation conducted qua the offence under the SC/ST Act.
34. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after carefully perusing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and the judgments passed by FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 84 of 86 the Higher Echelons of Judiciary, it cannot be said that the accused had in any manner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It has not been mentioned and verified by the IO during investigation that there was any communication between the deceased and accused prior to the incident which could established that the accused and the deceased were in immediate presence of each other or that any influence or instigation could have been done by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide.
35. In view of the judgment in the case of Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi (supra) and in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the abetment involves a mental process of instigation towards a person or intentionally adding a person for doing a thing. However, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or intentionally aid in committing suicide, the conviction against the accused cannot be made out.
36. The actions attributed to the accused do not amount to any kind of abetment or incitement to the deceased for commission of suicide which she committed due to heart break. Upon perusal of the suicide note of the deceased, there is mention of her feeling heart broken due to the rejection of marriage proposal by the family of accused which she believed to be due to the reason that she was from schedule caste per say does not amount to be instigation on the part of the accused.
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 85 of 86
37. The accusation pertaining to abetment to suicide does not stand proved against the accused and more so the action of the deceased was not proximate to the time when she had spoken to the accused and further it cannot perceived that the accused had any time before the death of the deceased committed any act or provoked the deceased to commit the offence of suicide.
38.In my considered view and in view of aforesaid discussion and case laws discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Rajat Gupta stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 306 IPC and Section 3 SC/ST Act.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
Announced in open Court CHAUDHARY Date: 2025.08.22
Today. 16:17:39 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
22.08.2025
FIR No.445/2017 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rajat Gupta Page No. 86 of 86