Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Ray on 22 January, 2026
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
CNR No. DLSE01-008605-2021.
State
versus
Mr. Deepak Ray
Son of Mr. Dular Ray
Resident of Village Majwar Tal, Kata Kus
PS Manihari, Dist. Katihar, Bihar.
FIR No. 177 of 2021.
Under section 306 of the IPC
PS : Govindpuri.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 03.06.2021.
Date of committal of the case : 30.09.2021.
Date of first hearing before the learned : 06.10.2021.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of framing of the charge : 12.05.2022.
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 04.12.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 16.01.2026.
Date of judgment : 16.01.2026.
Appearances : Mr. R. K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor for the State
(Officiating) is not available being unwell and is on short
leave.
Mr. Inder Kumar, Substitute Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused Mr. Deepak Ray on bail with counsel Mr. K. S.
Sharma and Mr. Hardik Salwan.
***********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Deepak Ray, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri.
15:30:04 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 1 of 54 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Station Govindpuri for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. On the complaint of Ms. Geeta Devi wife of Mr. Nechu Rai, FIR bearing number 177 of 2021 was registered by the police of Police Station Govindpuri under section 306 of the IPC.
Chargesheet
3. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet for offence under section 306 of the IPC, which was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 03.06.2021. Compliance of provision of section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was made. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2021 for trial being a sessions triable case for 06.10.2021.
Prosecution case
4. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2021, ASI Om Prakash received GD No. 37A regarding admission of patient Ms. Kavita wife of Mr. Deepak, aged about 20 years, who had committed suicide. On receiving this information, ASI Om Prakash reached Safdarjung Hospital and collected the MLC of patient Ms. Kavita, who was declared as brought dead. Thereafter, he reached the spot i.e. Jhuggie No. B-30, 4th Floor, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi and got the spot inspected by Mobile Crime Team. Inquiries were made from the neighbours and their statements were Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:30:25 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 2 of 54 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
recorded. On 02.04.2021, Ms. Geeta Devi and Mr. Sanjit Kumar, sister and brother of the deceased respectively came to the police station. ASI Om Prakash produced both of them before the SDM, Kalkaji and statement of Ms. Geeta Devi was recorded by the SDM. On the basis of the statement given by Ms. Geeta Devi, FIR was registered. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. In the postmortem, the cause of death was given as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed under section 306 of the IPC against the accused.
Charge
5. Vide order dated 12.05.2022, charge was framed against the accused Mr. Deepak Ray for commission of offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC that on 20.04.2015, during the subsistence of marriage, the accused harassed and tortured the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor on several occasions and on 28.03.2021 and 31.03.2021, the accused gave beatings and harassed the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and pursuant to the same, she committed suicide on 31.03.2021. Accused Mr. Deepak Ray pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen (15) witnesses in prosecution evidence.
Digitally signedSessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No.: 177 of 2021. Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.22 Under Section 306 IPC. 15:30:44 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 3 of 54 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
7. The chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, chart of the exhibited documents and chart of the admitted witness and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) alongwith the specified details are hereinbelow:
Chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Sr. No. Prosecution Witness No. Name of Witness Description
1. PW-01 Ms. Geeta Devi. Complainant and sister of the deceased
2. PW-02 Mr. Sanjit Kumar. Brother of the complainant and deceased Ms. Kavita Devi.
3. PW-03 Mr. Manoj. Neighbour of the accused and deceased.
4. PW-04 Mr. Benam Singh. Landlord of the accused.
5. PW-05 Dr. Mohammad Examined the Amzad Ali victim and declared her brought dead.
6. PW-06 HC Sunder Lal Duty Officer, who registered the FIR
7. PW-7 (also examined as PW-15) Dr. Gaurav Vinod Deposed on behalf dated 16.10.2023 Jain of Dr. Alif Muzaffar Sofi, who conducted the post-
mortem of the
deceased.
8. PW-08 Ms. Lalvarmoy, the Recorded the
then Tehsildar, statements of Ms.
Kalkaji, New Delhi Geeta Devi and
accused Mr. Deepak
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally FIR No.: 177 of 2021. signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. 15:30:53 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 4 of 54 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
Ray.
Written a letter to
the CMO,
Safdarjung Hospital
authorising ASI Om
Prakash to get the
post-mortem of the
deceased
conducted.
9. PW-09 HC Dinesh Joined the
investigation of the
case with IO/ASI
Om Prakash and
went to Mortuary,
Safdarjung Hospital
where the
postmortem was
conducted.
The Autopsy
Surgeon handed
over the visera of
the deceased to him.
He deposited the
viscera box in the
malkhana of the PS.
10. PW-10 HC Jagram He was the Beat
Officer of the area.
He joined the
investigation of the
case with IO/ASI
Om Prakash.
He alongwith IO/
ASI Om Prakash
reached at the place
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:31:08 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 5 of 54 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
of incident.
He is a witness to
the Arrest Memo,
Personal Search
Memo, Disclosure
Statement of the
accused and seizure
memo.
11. PW-11 HC Shiv Kumar On the directions of
Sharma the IO, he collected
the viscera box
from the malkhana
and deposited the
same with FSL,
Rohini vide Road
Certificate
no.61/21/21.
He received the
acknowledgment
issued by FSL
Office.
12. PW-12 ASI Om Prakash IO of the case.
13. PW-13 HC Satish He was the
MHC(M) and
proved the entries in
Malkhana Register.
14. PW-14 SI Ravi Beniwal The present case
was marked to him
to obtain the
opinion of the
concerned Doctor
regarding the nature
of injury caused by
case property i.e.
chunni.
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:31:22 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 6 of 54 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
He prepared the
supplementary
chargesheet and
filed the same
before the Court.
15. PW-15 (also examined as PW-7) Dr. Gaurav Vinod He deposed on dated 20.02.2024 Jain behalf of Dr.Alif Muzaffar Sofi, who has left the services of the Hospital and has worked with him.
He proved the
subsequent opinion
prepared by Dr. Alif
Muzaffar Sofi in
respect of deceased
Kavita Devi and
post-mortem report
no.827/21.
Chart of the exhibited documents
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by /Attested
by
1. Ex. PW-1/A Statement of the complainant Ms. PW-1/ Ms. Geeta
Geeta Devi. Devi.
2. Ex. PW-1/B Identification statement of the PW-1/ Ms. Geeta
complainant Ms. Geeta Devi. Devi.
3. Ex. PW-2/A Identification Statement of Mr. PW-2/ Mr. Sanjit
Sanjit Kumar. Kumar.
4. Ex. PW-2/B Handing over receipt of the body of PW-2/Mr. Sanjit
the deceased Ms. Kavita Devi. Kumar.
5. Ex. PW-5/A Casualty card of patient /deceased PW-5/ Dr.
Ms. Kavita Devi. Mohammad Amzad
Ali.
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:31:35 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 7 of 54 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
6. Ex. PW-5/B MLC no.104407 of deceased Ms. PW-5/Dr. Kavita Devi. Mohammad Amzad Ali.
7. Ex. PW-5/C Information form for the transfer of PW-5/ Dr. the dead body to mortuary. Mohammad Amzad Ali.
8. Ex. PW-5/D Covid-19 check list of deceased Ms. PW-5/ Dr. Kavita Devi. Mohammad Amzad Ali.
9. Ex. PW-5/E Death report of deceased Ms. Kavita PW-5/ Dr. Devi. Mohammad Amzad Ali.
10. Ex. PW-6/A Certificate under Section 65B of the PW-6/HC Sunder Indian Evidence Act. Lal/Duty Officer.
11. Ex. PW-6/B Copy of the FIR PW-6/ HC Sunder Lal/ Duty Officer.
12. Ex. PW-7/A Postmortem Report of deceased Ms. PW-7/Dr. Gaurav Kavita Devi. Vinod Jain.
13. Ex. PW-8/A Statement of accused Mr. Deepak PW-8/ Ms. Ray. Lalvarmoy.
14. Ex. PW-8/B Authority letter in favour of IO/ASI PW-8/Ms. Om Prakash to conduct the Lalvarmoy.
postmortem of deceased Ms. Kavita Devi.
15. Ex. PW-9/A Seizure memo of viscera of PW-9/HC Dinesh.
deceased Ms. Kavita Devi.
16. Ex. PW-10/A Seizure memo of chunni. PW-10/ HC Jagram.
17. Ex. PW-10/B Arrest memo of the accused Mr. PW-10/ HC Jagram.
Deepak Ray.
18. Ex. PW-10/C Personal search memo of the PW-10/ HC Jagram.
accused Mr. Deepak Ray.
19. Ex. PW-10/D Disclosure statement of the accused PW-10/ HC Jagram.
Mr. Deepak Ray.
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:31:49 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 8 of 54 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
20. Ex. PW-11/A Acknowledgment receipt issued by PW-11/ HC Shiv FSL Officer in respect of deposition Kumar Sharma. of viscera box with FSL.
21. Ex. PW-11/B Copy of Road Certificate. PW-11/ HC Shiv Kumar Sharma.
22. Ex. PW-12/A DD entry no.37A regarding PW-12/ASI Om admission of deceased Ms. Kavita Prakash. Devi.
23. Ex. PW-12/B Statement of witness Mr.Benam PW-12/ASI Om Singh. Prakash.
24. Ex. PW-12/C Statement of witness Mr.Manoj. PW-12/ASI Om Prakash.
25. Ex. PW-12/D Statement of witness Mr. Rajiv. PW-12/ASI Om Prakash.
26. Ex. PX Request letter to conduct the PW-12/ASI Om postmortem on the body of the Prakash.
deceased Ms. Kavita Devi.
27. Ex. PW-12/E Statement of complainant Ms. Geeta PW-12/ASI Om Devi. Prakash.
28. Ex. PW-12/F Endorsement made by IO on the PW-12/ASI Om statement of Ms. Geeta Devi. Prakash.
29. Ex. PW-12/G Site plan. PW-12/ASI Om Prakash.
30. Ex. PW-12/H Chargesheet. PW-12/ASI Om Prakash.
31. Ex. PW-13/A Entry no.1950 in the malkhana PW-13/ HC Satish.
register.
32. Ex. PW-13/B Original record of the Road PW-13/ HC Satish.
Certificate no.61/21/21.
33. Ex. PW-13/C Original record of the Road PW-13/ HC Satish.
Certificate no.115/21/21.
34. Ex. PW-15/A Postmortem report no. 827/21 of PW-15/ Dr. Gaurav deceased Ms. Kavita Devi. Vinod Jain.
Digitally signedSessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No.: 177 of 2021. Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.22 Under Section 306 IPC. 15:32:02 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 9 of 54 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
Chart of the material objects/muddamals Sr. No. Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested Exhibit by
1. Ex. PW-10/P-1 (colly). Two pieces of light PW-10 /HC Jagram.
green colour chunni and on the border of chunni there are shining stars stitched.
Chart of the admitted witnesses and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) Sr. No. Admitted Witness / Document Description of the Admitted by Exhibit
1. The scene of crime report Ex. A-1 Mr. M. I. Ahmed, prepared by ASI Ravi Kumar. counsel for the accused, on behalf of the accused
2. 12 photographs of the place of Ex. A-2 (colly.) Mr. M. I. Ahmed, incident clicked by Ct. Baljeet. counsel for the accused, on behalf of the accused.
Statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and his defence
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Deepak Ray has controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against him stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has never consumed liquor at any point of time and has never harassed, tortured or beaten the deceased nor abetted her suicide. He has never demanded anything from her. His wife was under depression due to his poor financial condition. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence. Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
Digitally signed by FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:32:16 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 10 of 54 ::- -:: 11 ::- Final arguments
9. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
10. The substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. The deceased expired within seven years of her marriage by hanging. Her marriage was solemnized with the accused on 20.03.2015 and she expired on 28.03.2021. The complainant, her brother and the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution story. The deceased used to talk on phone with her siblings and informed them about the harassment, torture, misconduct and misbehaviour of the accused. The accused and the deceased have a four years old daughter and the deceased must have been so tortured that she took her own life to escape the same. Accused was habitual of drinking, beating and quarrelling with the deceased and even on the day of incident, he had beaten and harassed her and then, went to throw garbage at a distance of 1½ kilometers when she committed suicide by hanging herself. Investigation has been conducted fairly and properly and all the relevant documents have been proved. It is prayed that accused Mr. Deepak Ray be convicted for the commission of the alleged offence.
11. On the other hand, the counsel for accused Mr. Deepak Ray has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:32:37 +0530 Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 11 of 54 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
case and he is innocent. There is a delay of four (04) days in lodging the FIR. No complaint was ever made by the deceased or her family or anyone else regarding the alleged cruelty by the accused upon the deceased. It was the accused, along with neighbours, who took the deceased to the hospital in order to save her. The complainant and the other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have made several improvements and contradictions. The sister of the deceased is partly hostile. The siblings of the deceased never visited her at Delhi. There is no phone record to show that the deceased talked to her sister on the day of incident. No independent person from the public associated in the investigation, arrest of the accused, etc. Investigation is not fair nor proper. There is no evidence on record to connect accused Mr. Deepak Ray with the alleged offence. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, accused Mr. Deepak Ray may be acquitted.
Discussion, analysis and observations
12. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:33:01 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 12 of 54 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
13. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
Section 306 of the IPC
14. Section 306 of the IPC deals with the abetment to suicide. It reads as follows:
NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:33:12 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 13 of 54 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
"306. Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. The word "abet" means assistance, cooperation, and support. It also encompasses an unlawful motive for committing a crime. To apprehend someone who is aiding someone in carrying out an act under any of the circumstances. Abetment of suicide refers to the act of assisting, encouraging, or instigating someone to take their own life. This can also include providing the means, knowledge, or Emotional support for the individual to commit suicide. The key elements of abetment include intention, active involvement, and a direct link to the act of suicide. Abetment of suicide, as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, occurs when a person instigates, persuades, or encourages another individual to commit suicide.
16. According to section 108 of the IPC, an "abettor" is someone who encourages or coerces another to commit an offense. It is defined as encouraging or helping someone to commit suicide. A conviction cannot stand unless the accused intentionally encouraged or abetted suicide. Abetment of suicide maybe (i) Direct involvement in planning or executing the suicide. (ii) Persuading, coercing, or manipulating the individual to end their life. (iii) Providing lethal substances or weapons to facilitate suicide.
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL Date:
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA 2026.01.22 15:33:25 +0530 Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 14 of 54 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
17. Any manifestation of instigation can occur. The law does not stipulate that instigation must be exclusively verbal; it can also be through conduct. Between the act committed and the instigation, there must be a distinct causal link. A person instigates another when actively suggesting, stimulating, supporting, hinting, or insinuating the commission of an act. Just being associated with someone who commits a crime doesn't make a person guilty of abetting unless it's proven that they encouraged or intended to help in the charge of the crime. A person who simply watches without taking an active part in the crime is not considered an abettor.
18. When determining whether or not abetment of suicide has occurred, the Court is required to consider various factors such as the mental state of the deceased, the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and any evidence of direct or indirect encouragement towards suicide. It is essential to establish a clear link between the actions of the accused and the act of suicide.
19. In cases where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, and if it is shown that her husband or his relatives were cruel to her as defined in section 498-A of the IPC, then the Court may presume that the husband or his relatives abetted the suicide, according to section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872. In cases where the husband or any of his relatives are found guilty of cruelty towards the wife, the presumption of abetment to commit suicide is applied under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL Date:
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA 2026.01.22 15:33:42 Under Section 306 IPC. +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 15 of 54 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
20. Instigation must be the intention to incite, coerce, or motivate someone to do action. Suicidal behavior varies among individuals based on their perception of self-esteem and self-respect. Dealing with such situations defies a strict formula. Each case must be decided based on its unique facts and circumstances.
21. Abetment is active and intentional for an individual to be the culprit of an offence. While applying the law about abetment to suicide should consider the mens rea aspect which plays an important role as a precondition liability. The aiding and abetting suicide is an atrocious, serious, and non-compoundable misconduct that cannot be moved with a simple plea bargain.
22. The key legal principles to indicate abetment of suicide are as follows:
i. Proximity: There must be a close, proximate link between the accused's actions and the victim's decision to end their life.
ii. Intent: A crucial element is the accused's intent to encourage or facilitate the suicide, not just general harassment, though severe harassment can be a factor. iii. Not just harassment: Mere quarrelsome behavior or insults, without direct connection to the suicide, may not be enough for conviction under Section 306.
23. Any harassment, without a direct and proximate link to the suicide, is insufficient to sustain charges under section 306 of the IPC. Ordinary matrimonial quarrels or denial of entry into the matrimonial home cannot, by themselves, constitute abetment to suicide.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL SHARMA
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
15:33:55 +0530
Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 16 of 54 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
24. In the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows:
"For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, the presence of clear mens rea--the intention to abet the act-- is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible."
25. The Court pointed out the following essential ingredients to be fulfilled to bring a case under Section 306 of the IPC: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the Court explained that, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. The Court also reiterated that the act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviours of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, the Court elaborated on the proximity of the acts to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
SHARMA 15:34:07 +0530
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 17 of 54 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
accused's behaviour and the tragic outcome.
Delay in registering the FIR
26. The contention of the prosecution that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR and the counsel for the accused that there was a delay of four days in lodging of the FIR which is fatal are now being taken into consideration.
27. The alleged incident occurred on 31.03.2021 and the FIR (Ex.
PW-6/B) was registered on 04.04.2021 with the information being received on 04.04.2021 at 21:35 hours.
28. The prosecution story unveils on 31.03.2021 when ASI Om Prakash (PW-12) received GD No. 37A (Ex. PW-12/A) regarding admission of patient Ms. Kavita wife of Mr. Deepak, aged about 20 years, who had committed suicide. On receiving this information, ASI Om Prakash reached Safdarjung Hospital and collected the MLC of patient Ms. Kavita, who was declared as brought dead. Thereafter, he reached the spot i.e. Jhuggie No. B-30, 4 th Floor, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi and got the spot inspected by Mobile Crime Team. Inquiries were made from the neighbours and their statements were recorded. On 02.04.2021, Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) and Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2), sister and brother of the deceased respectively came to the police station. ASI Om Prakash produced both of them before the SDM, Kalkaji and statement of Ms. Geeta Devi was recorded by the SDM. On the basis of the statement given by Ms. Geeta Devi, FIR (Ex. PW-6/B) was registered.
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA 2026.01.22 Under Section 306 IPC. 15:34:17 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 18 of 54 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
29. The contention of the counsel for the accused that there was a delay of four days in lodging of the FIR which is fatal is now being taken into consideration. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused that the FIR was lodged by the sister of the deceased after due deliberation and consultation.
30. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Delay in lodging of the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. It is therefore that the delay in lodging the FIR be satisfactorily explained. The purpose and object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.
31. It is not that every delay in registration of the FIR would be fatal to the prosecution. Once the delay has been sufficiently explained, the prosecution case would not suffer. However, it is necessary for the Courts to exercise due caution particularly in the cases involving sexual offences because the only evidence in such cases is the version put forwarded by the prosecution.
32. In the case reported as State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
SHARMA
PS : Govindpuri. 15:34:29 +0530
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 19 of 54 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
SCC 745, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy.
33. Similar view was taken in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. The State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance s for the accused when accusation of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered , the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactory explain the delay and there s possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.
34. In the judgment reported as Devanand v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2003 Crl.L.J. 242, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
"The above said statement clearly shows that at the earliest opportunity the prosecutrix had not made any complaint to her mother in this regard. Reading of the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. 15:34:39 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 20 of 54 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
examination-in chief reveals that first time she was raped as per her own version after about 30-36 days of coming of the appellant but in any case she admits that she has been raped many a times and she only complained to her mother few days after he had left. The appellant stayed in the house of the prosecutrix for more than year."
35. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the judgment reported as Babu Lal and Anr v. State of Rajasthan, Cri.L.J. 2282 , has held as under:
"No doubt delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cannot normally damage the version of the prosecutrix as held the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements but husband of the prosecutrix is there and report is lodged after one and half months, such type of delay would certainly be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case"
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment reported as Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madya Pradesh, 1992 Cr.L.J. 715, has held as under:
"in conclusion, having regard to the conduct of the prosecutrix in not making any kind of complaint about the alleged incident to anybody for five days coupled with late recording of report by her after five days with false explanation for the delay, in the context also of the Lax Morals of the Prosecutrix, it is very unsafe to pin faith on her mere word that sexual intercourse was committed with her by five accused persons or any of them. It is also difficult to believe her version regarding the alleged abduction in jeep. In the circumstances it must be held that the prosecutrix story was not satisfactorily established"
37. It is clear from the record that information regarding the admission of Ms. Kavita was given at the earliest vide GD No. 37A (Ex. Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
Digitally signed FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 SHARMA PS : Govindpuri. 15:34:50 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 21 of 54 ::- -:: 22 ::-
PW-12/A) and when her siblings reached Delhi from their native place, their statements were recorded promptly and FIR (Ex. PW-6/B) was registered.
38. It is probable and possible that on coming to know about the demise of their sister, her siblings Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) and Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2), had to make the necessary arrangements for their travel from their native place in Bihar to Delhi and then give their statements and FIR was registered. The gap of four days between the demise of the deceased and registration of FIR has been reasonably and logically explained by the prosecution.
39. There is apparently no delay in lodging of the FIR. Nothing is shown by the accused to shatter the credibility of the prosecution case or that the FIR is motivated and registered after due deliberations and consultations.
40. Therefore, it can be said that the FIR was lodged without any delay.
Evidence of the siblings of the deceased
41. It is important to consider the testimonies of Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) who is the complainant and the sister of the deceased as well as Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) brother of the deceased.
42. The testimony of Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) is very lengthy but it is essential to reproduce the same.
NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 FIR No.: 177 of 2021. SHARMA 15:34:59 +0530 Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 22 of 54 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
43. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed in her examination in chief as follows:
"1. Kavita Devi is my younger sister. She was married to Deepak Ray, who is present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness. The marriage was performed in Mujbar Taal, Kata Kush, Katihar, Bihar. She was married on 20.04.2015. One girl child was born from the said wedlock. The child is now 6½ years.
2. After the marriage of my sister Kavita, accused brought her to Delhi and kept her in a jhuggie on rent in Govind Puri, New Delhi. The accused used to drink liquor and quarrel with my sister. My sister Kavita used to tell me that accused used to consume liquor and quarrel with her. I asked the accused why he was behaving with my sister badly and I scolded him.
3. I talked to my sister on 28.03.2021. On that day, my sister Kavita asked me what I had prepared on that day. It was the festival of Holi on 28.03.2021. I told my sister that I had prepared good food for Holi Festival. I asked my sister what she had prepared on Holi Festival. She started weeping/crying on the phone veh rone lagi. She told me that she had not prepared the food. She further told me vo mujhe khana banane nahi de reha thaa.. sharab peekar maar peet karte hain.. My sister Kavita told me that her husband Deepak Ray was arrested in a theft case and money was arranged by her and her landlord. I also gave money to get the bail of Deepak Ray. My sister further told me that she was returning the money to the lenders.
4. On 31.03.2021 I was at my in-laws house in Bihar. My mother Smt. Surjee Devi informed me that she received a telephonic call from accused Deepay Ray and she further told me that accused told her that my sister Kavita Devi has committed suicide. I immediately came to my mother's house. I asked my mother to go immediately to Delhi but my mother was not well at that time and told me to go Delhi. I alongwith my younger brother Sanjeet Kumar came to Delhi from Bihar on 02.04.2021. Police also informed my parents also before we came to Delhi so we went to police station where police met us. Police made Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:35:09 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 23 of 54 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
enquiries from me and recorded my statement Ex. PW-1/A which bears my signature at point-A.
5. On 03.04.2021 postmortem on the body of my sister Kavita was not done. On 04.04.2021 the postmortem was done on the body of my sister Kavita. I identified the body of my sister Kavita Devi before the postmortem vide my identification statement Ex. PW-1/B which bears my signature at point-A.
6. On 28.03.2021 when I talk to my sister Kavita, she told me that her husband Deepak Ray had consumed liquor and was quarreling with her. On that day she was weeping and after telling about the accused about his conduct, she disconnected the phone."
44. The prosecution has cross-examined Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) on certain facts as she was unable to recollect the facts. She has deposed as follows :
"It is correct that on 28.03.2021 my sister Kavita had told me on phone that she did not prepare the food as the accused had gone outside the house, and she further told me that if she prepare the food for accused, he will again quarrel with her. It is correct that on 28.03.2021 accused had made tod phod in the room, as told by my sister Kavita. It is correct that my sister Kavita also told my on phone on 28.03.2021 that she was fed up with the frequent quarrel by the accused with her and she could take an extreme step to commit suicide. Again said, she did not tell me that she will take a harsh/extreme step/suicide. It is wrong to suggest that my sister also told me that she will take a harsh step due to the said harassment by the accused to her. It is correct that I had advised my sister to prepare food for her husband. It is correct that my sister Kavita committed suicide due to the harassment, larai jhagara, maar peet by the accused."
45. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has been cross examined on behalf of the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 SHARMA 15:35:18 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 24 of 54 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
accused at length and she has deposed as follows:
"9. It is correct that Deepak Ray belongs to the village where I have been married. It is also correct that we were known to Deepak Ray and his family prior to the marriage with my sister. The marriage of Deepak Ray was solemnized as per the social customs. After the marriage, my sister was at her matrimonial home in the said village.
My sister Kavita used to come to my matrimonial home frequently after the marriage. Accused used to consume liquor in the village also, but did not cause quarrel in the village. The accused Deepak Ray and my sister came to Delhi and no other came with them. I do not recollect now when they came to Delhi. Accused and my sister stayed in a jhuggie in Govind Puri, New Delhi (I never visited the jhuggie of the accused in Govind Puri, New Delhi. I used to reside at my native village in my matrimonial home. Accused Deepak Ray and my sister Kavita used to visit our native place. In my presence, accused and my sister Kavita used to visit village. My sister Kavita used to tell that accused Deepak Ray used to quarrel with her. My sister told me that the issue of quarrel was for arranging the money for the theft case which was pending against the accused in Faridabad. The money was arranged by my sister, myself for the bail of accused in the case lodged in Faridabad. Accused remained in jail in the case lodged in Faridabad but I never visited Delhi to meet my sister or her husband.
10.I have come to Ghaziabad to meet my some relations who are residing in Ghaziabad, but I am residing in native village. Some of my villagers work in Ghaziabad, but they are not my relatives. I came to Delhi on the death of my sister Kavita. I asked accused Deepak Ray on his phone about the death of my sister Kavita before I came to Delhi. It is correct that accused Deepak has informed to my parents and his parents regarding the death of my sister Kavita. Initially, I talked to my sister occasionally. But after sometime the accused started misbehaving/beating with my sister. I started talking with my sister to know her family treatment by the accused.
11. One day accused gave beatings to my sister by a balen Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:35:29 PS : Govindpuri.
+0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 25 of 54 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
(used to make rotees) on the head of my sister and her forehead was swollen. She sent her photo/picture on the mobile. After seeing the said photo, I scolded the accused as to how he gave beatings to my sister. The accused might have informed her parents about the scolding by me and the mother of the accused came to my parental house and quarreled and misbehaved with me. Mother of the accused advised her son Deepak Ray to take away the mobile phone from my sister Kavita so that she could not make any communication with my family or with me. This was the reason that I could not talk to her regularly. I did not ask my villagers who were residing in Ghaziabad to go to Delhi and see my sister Kavita. (Vol. I was planning to come to Delhi after harvesting the wheat crop). My sister made a call to my elder brother and she informed about her condition caused by accused.
12. I was in my in-laws house when the incident occurred. On 28.03.2021 or thereafter on 31.03.2021 no my villagers were residing in Ghaziabad. My villagers started residing thereafter in Ghaziabad. On 28.03.2021 my sister made a call to me on my phone. I was in my in-laws house on that day. The house of accused Deepak Ray is situated 01/01½ kilometer from my in-laws house. I did not visit the house of accused Deepak Ray in the village on 28.03.2021 to complaint them about the maar peet and misbehaving by the accused with my sister in Delhi. I came to Delhi on 02.04.2021 and went to the police station and reached there at around 10.00/11.00 am. IO of this case met me after about one or two hours after reaching at the police station. One police official Om Parkash assisted us in the police station. Om Parkash Sir asked me to sit down and wait for the officer who will write down my complaint. The police officer asked me and it was written by the police officer. The police officer was writing my complaint on my dictation in the police station. But I did not read the said statement. The said statement was read over to me by the police officer. My statement was written by the police and no one was present with me. (Vol. My brother was standing at some distance away from me). My statement was recorded on 02.04.2021. After giving my statement to the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
SHARMA 15:35:38 +0530
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 26 of 54 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
police on 02.04.2021, I came out from the police station and stayed in Delhi at some acquaintance house.
13. I had seen accused Deepak in the police station on 02.04.2021, but I did not talk to him. (Vol. He was inside the lockup). Semal Kumar, brother of the accused, visited the police station on 04.04.2021. After the postmortem, the body of Kavita was handed over to us and police officer asked us to visit the police station after the cremation of my sister Kavita and thereafter after cremation I again visited the police station where I found Semal Kumar was present in the police station. (Vol. One other person namely Jang Bahadur was also present with Semal Kumar). I did not talk to them.
....
Today, I have not come from my native place. I am residing in Delhi and doing some private job. I am working as casual labour. My husband is Tractor Driver and lives at native place. I am not literate. My husband is also not literate. I used to do the agriculture job at my in-laws home. It is correct that accused Deepak called my mother and informed that Kavita has committed suicide. At that time, I was at my in-laws home, which is around 30-35 Kms from my mother's place. I received the information in the morning but I do not recollect the exact time. My mother informed me. I came to my parental home on the same day and reached about 12 noon. From there, I left for Delhi in the night. I boarded the train from Katihar railway station with my brother Sanjit at about 11 pm (night) on 01.04.2021. I reached Delhi on 02.04.2021 at Anand Vihar railway station at night. I do not recollect at what time at night we reached at Delhi. Vol. Usually the train takes 24 hours from Katihar to Delhi. We remained at the railway station till morning. We left railway station Anand Vihar at about 8 am and reached police station Govind Puri at about 9 am on 03.04.2021. My statement, Ex.PW1/A was recorded at different office and police took me before the SDM.
On that day, the postmortem was not done. I remained at the police station till 2½ hours. Police asked me about my parents and also asked me why they had not come. I told Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. Date: 2026.01.22 SHARMA 15:35:49 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 27 of 54 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
the police that my parents were not well. Vol. My mother expired after 10-15 days of this incident. The dead body of my sister was received from hospital on 04.04.2021 between 12 noon to 1 pm. My sister was cremated at Shamshan Ghat on the same day by 3 pm. I do not remember the name and place of Shamshan Ghat. My sister used to tell me whenever accused used to torture her. My sister informed the police once regarding torture by the accused. But I do not know the police station where she reported the same. My sister told me on phone that she informed the police prior to 15 days of her death. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is further wrong to suggest that on 28.03.2021 my sister did not talk to me on phone. It is further wrong to suggest that she was never maltreated by her husband. It is further wrong to suggest that accused was never apprehended in a case registered in Faridabad. It is further wrong to suggest that I never helped her financially to release her husband from Jail. It is further wrong to suggest that she was not harassed, tortured or maltreated by the accused."
46. It is abundantly clear from the evidence of Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) that her evidence is too general, unspecific, vague, evasive and generic. There is nothing shown in her evidence which could indicate that there was any proximity in the conduct of the accused and committing of suicide by the deceased. The mobile phone of the witness and the mobile phones of the deceased as well as the accused were not seized during the investigation nor sent to the FSL for examination to substantiate the allegations against the accused and to prove that the witness and deceased were talking to each other and she had even shared a photo reflecting her injuries when the accused had beaten the deceased with a belan. No explanation for the same has been furnished by the prosecution and the witness.Digitally signed by NIVEDITA
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.22 Under Section 306 IPC. 15:36:03 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 28 of 54 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
47. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has neither furnished any details of the dates and times when allegedly the accused had quarreled with her sister or beaten her nor has furnished any explanation why she did not inform the family of the accused regarding the same or make any complaint to the police. She has also not been able to show that the accused used to drink liquor and then harass and torture her sister.
She has deposed that her deceased sister had told her that the accused was not letting her prepare food for Holi on 28.03.2021 and beats her after drinking liquor but the same does not appear to be such a reason for the deceased to commit suicide on 31.03.2021. Also, Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed that her sister told her that her husband Deepak Ray was arrested in a theft case and money was arranged by her and her landlord. She herself also gave money to get the bail of Deepak Ray. Her sister further told her that she was returning the money to the lenders. However neither any details of the alleged theft case against the accused at Faridabad nor any date of his arrest and making monetary arrangement and the quantum of the same have been furnished by the witness due to which the same appears to be doubtful. It is also strange that she did not even care to come to Delhi to help her sister in the alleged difficult times when her husband was allegedly in custody. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1), in fact, did not even remember some material facts due to which she was cross examined on behalf of the State wherein she has deposed that "...It is correct that my sister Kavita also told my on phone on 28.03.2021 that she was fed up with the frequent quarrel by the accused with her and she could take an extreme step to commit suicide. Again said, she did not tell me that she will take a Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed by FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:36:11 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 29 of 54 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
harsh/extreme step/suicide. It is wrong to suggest that my sister also told me that she will take a harsh step due to the said harassment by the accused to her..." Although she has subsequently deposed that her sister committed suicide due to "the harassment, larai jhagara, maar peet by the accused" but in totality with the evidence, it becomes insignificant as her sister had not told her that she will take the harsh step of suicide. Further, when the deceased was talking frequently on phone with Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1), then why she did not make any complaint to the police at Delhi or even Bihar has not been explained. It has also not been explained why the parents of the deceased were not informed about the alleged misbehaviour and misconduct of the accused.
48. When the deceased was talking to Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) and informing her of the misconduct of the accused, then why she did not tell the deceased to make a complaint to the police has not been explained by the witness and the prosecution. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed that she did not visit the house of accused Deepak Ray in the village on 28.03.2021 to complain to them about the maar peet and misbehaving by the accused with her sister in Delhi. She herself did not come to Delhi nor asked her villagers then living at Ghaziabad to go to the house of the accused to make him stop torturing and beating her sister.
49. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed that "...I had seen accused Deepak in the police station on 02.04.2021, but I did not talk to him.
(Vol. He was inside the lockup)..." However, the arrest memo of the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:36:21 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 30 of 54 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
accused (Ex. PW-10/B) shows that he was arrested on 04.04.2021 at 10:55 pm from his residence. The indicates that the claim of the witness is apparently wrong.
50. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has categorically deposed that it was the accused who called her mother and informed that Ms. Kavita had committed suicide. In such a situation, why a complaint was not made to the police immediately has not been explained by the prosecution and the witness.
51. Also, Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed that "...My sister used to tell me whenever accused used to torture her. My sister informed the police once regarding torture by the accused. But I do not know the police station where she reported the same. My sister told me on phone that she informed the police prior to 15 days of her death..."
Neither the witness nor the prosecution has been able to furnish any details and documents of such alleged information of torture of Ms. Kavita to the police.
52. The fact that Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) did not recall the material facts and was even cross examined by the prosecution indicates the possibility of allegations against the accused being false.
53. The evidence of Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence and is not helpful to the prosecution, as discussed above.
54. Now evidence of Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2), brother of the deceased Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:36:30 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 31 of 54 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
Ms. Kavita and Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1), is being taken into consideration.
55. Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) has deposed on the lines of the testimony of Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1). He has deposed as follows:
"...Initially, my brother-in-law i.e. accused present in the court today, treated my sister well but after sometime, accused started quarreling with my sister and this fact was told by my sister Kavita to me on phone. Accused used to quarrel with my sister but I do not the reason for quarrel. My sister Kavita was working in a Export company and accused was working in the garage of motorbike. I was told by my deceased sister that accused used to consume liquor and he used to come home after consuming liquor. My deceased sister was not happy with the conduct and habit of consuming liquor and she always remained intense. I made a call to accused and asked him not to quarrel with my sister. I do not recollect now whether accused mend his ways. On 28.03.2021, my deceased sister was in Govind Puri. On that day, my elder sister told me that accused has come under the influence of liquor and he is quarreling with my deceased sister and tod fod kar raha hai. On 31.03.2021, I was present at my native place with my mother and my mother received telephonic information from accused and accused informed that my sister Kavita has committed suicide..."
56. In his cross examination, Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) has deposed that "...It is correct that when accused was residing in his village with my sister, there was no complaint against the accused. I never visited Delhi at the house of my sister Kavita in her lifetime. It is correct that accused himself informed my mother about the death of my sister Kavita..."
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. SHARMA 2026.01.22 FIR No.: 177 of 2021. 15:36:39 +0530 Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 32 of 54 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
57. The prosecution as well as the witness have failed to explain why Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) did not make any complaint to the police against the accused if he was aware that the accused was taking liquor, beating and torturing his sister Ms. Kavita. He also did not care to come to Delhi to rectify the situation. He has also failed to furnish the details of the alleged incidents or the dates when his sister informed him about the misconduct of the accused. If his deceased sister was working and was financially independent, then why she did not make any complaint against the accused to the police. Even the phone of this witness was not seized during investigation for sending to the FSL.
58. Therefore, even the testimony of Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) is not helpful for proving the prosecution version.
Evidence of Mr. Manoj (PW-3) and Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4)
59. The prosecution has produced Mr. Manoj (PW-3) and Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4) to show the misconduct and misbehaviour of the accused.
60. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:
i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the 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, it is Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
SHARMA 15:36:50 +0530
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 33 of 54 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
undoubtedly 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 the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
ii. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. iii. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence. iv. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or 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.
v. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
vi. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL Date:
Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.22 15:36:59 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 34 of 54 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
vii. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. viii. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
ix. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. x. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. xi. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
xii. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
xiii. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former Digitally signed Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.22 15:37:08 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 35 of 54 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
61. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
i. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. ii. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
iii. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. iv. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
v. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. vi. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
62. It was also held in the above referred judgment that in assessing the value of the evidence of the witnesses, two principal considerations Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:37:22 +0530
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 36 of 54 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. {Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365}.
63. Mr. Manoj (PW-3) has deposed that "...On 31.03.2021 I came to know that one neighbourer i.e. a lady, who was residing with her husband on rent at B-30, 4th Floor, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, New Delhi had committed suicide after hanging. I came to know that her husband Deepak had taken that lady to the hospital and she had expired. I came to know that some quarrel used to take place between Deepak and his wife..." In his cross examination, he has deposed that "...I was not having talking terms with the accused. However, I used to see him in the locality and the premises in which Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:37:34 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 37 of 54 ::-
-:: 38 ::-
he was residing. The wife of accused does not used to visit my house. I came to know about the incident after its commission from the person in the street when the alarm was raised by the people of the street. I did not make any enquiry from the landlord or any other person about the incident..."
64. It is abundantly clear from the evidence of Mr. Manoj (PW-3) that as he was not on talking terms with the accused, the possibility of his levelling false allegations against the accused cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise, he is merely a hearsay witness who did not even care to furnish the name of the person in the street when the alarm was raised by the people of the street and he did not make any enquiry from the landlord or any other person about the incident. The evidence of this witness does not appear to be reliable.
65. Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4), landlord of the accused, has deposed that "...I had rented the 4th floor of the said premises to Deepak Ray prior to five-six months of the day of the incident. Deepak Ray belonging to Bihar used to reside in the said premises with his wife. On 31.03.2021 in the noon hours, I came to know that my tenant Kavita wife of Deepak had committed suicide after hanging. I came to know that her husband Deepak had taken that lady to the hospital and she had expired..." In his cross examination, he has deposed that "...It is correct that I had not seen the accused quarreling with his wife. (Vol. If I could have seen, then I would have vacated the tenanted premises from the accused Deepak Ray). It is correct that wife of the accused had never made any complaint, neither to me Digitally signed Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL Date:
Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.22 15:37:44 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 38 of 54 ::-
-:: 39 ::-
nor to my wife. It is also correct that I had not find accused Deepak in drunkened state nor making any sort of mis-behaviour with any one else..."
66. It is revealed in the evidence of Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4) that neither he had seen the accused in drunken condition nor misbehaving with his wife or anyone else. The wife of the accused had never made any complaint against him to the witness or his wife. This testimony indicates that the relations between the accused and his wife were apparently normal and cordial as nothing wrong was ever noticed by Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4).
67. The evidence of Mr. Manoj (PW-3) and Mr. Benam Singh (PW-4) points towards the innocence of the accused.
Medical and forensic evidence
68. Dr. Mohammad Amzad Ali had examined patient Ms. Kavita brought by her husband Mr. Deepak Ray on 31.03.2021 and she was declared brought dead at 09:00 am. The Casualty Card of the patient Kavita Devi (Ex. PW-5/A), MLC No. 104407 of Kavita Devi (Ex. PW-5/B), information form for transfer of dead body to Mortuary (Ex. PW-5/C), COVID-19 Checklist of Kavita Devi (Ex. PW-5/D) and the Death Report of Kavita Devi (Ex. PW-5/E) have been proved by this witness.
69. Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain (PW-7 and PW-15) has proved the post mortem report of Ms. Kavita, prepared by Dr. Alif Muzaffar Sofi, Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:38:16 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 39 of 54 ::-
-:: 40 ::-
(Ex. PW-7/A) and deposed that as per the Postmortem Report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. He has also proved the subsequent opinion prepared by Dr. Alif Muzaffar Sofi in respect of deceased Kavita Devi and Postmortem Report No. 827/21 (Ex. PW-15/A). Dr. Alif Muzaffar Sofi has opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased could be possible with the alleged ligature material (chunni) sent for examination and death could be possible with the same.
70. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Amar Singh & Ors.
v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 while emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness in such circumstances in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 as follows:
"We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice".
71. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of State v. Kamlesh Bahadur, Crl.L.P. 519/2019 decided on 12.09.2023 set aside the conviction under section 308 of the IPC and converted the same to Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. Date: 2026.01.22 SHARMA 15:38:27 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 40 of 54 ::-
-:: 41 ::-
section 323 of the IPC. It was observed as follows :
"...In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an in- jury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the convic-
tion from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015, this Court altered the con- viction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. In Pawan Chaddha V State Criminal Appeal 640/2011 decided on 27.01.2016 by this Court, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while the co-accused were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC... There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC..."
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:38:37 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 41 of 54 ::-
-:: 42 ::-
72. The FSL report has not been submitted in the Court although the exhibits of the case were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi for examination. There is a communication annexed in the file which is dated 01.11.2022 from FSL addressed to the learned Predecessor mentioning that the case property was collected by ASI Narender No. 28902739 PS Govindpuri on 27.08.2021. Also, a reply regarding FSL report prepared and signed by SI Ravi Beniwal PS Govindpuri on 28.11.2022 is also annexed in the file that the FSL result was received from the FSL Rohini and the same was filed in the Court of Ms. Poorva Mehra, learned MM, South-East District, Saket Courts through supplementary chargesheet by SI Chander Shekhar on 23.11.2022. However, the FSL report has not been submitted before this Court and prosecution has not been able to furnish any explanation regarding non-submission of the FSL report before this Court. The Forensic Evidence is lacking, as neither the FSL report has been filed nor the concerned FSL expert has been produced and examined by the prosecution.
73. The medical evidence indicates that the death of Ms. Kavita Devi, wife of the accused, was by hanging and the same is not disputed by the accused though he has denied that he was cruel to her and used to drink liquor, harass, beat and torture her.
Digitally
signed by
NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL
ANIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.22
15:38:48
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. +0530
FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 42 of 54 ::-
-:: 43 ::-
Investigation
74. It is argued on behalf of the State that the investigation has been conducted fairly and properly while it is submitted on behalf of the accused that the investigation is shoddy and defective.
75. The investigation and the documents prepared have been proved by the police witnesses i.e. HC Sunder Lal (PW-6), HC Dinesh (PW-9), HC Jagram (PW-10), HC Shiv Kumar Sharma (PW-11), ASI Om Parkash (PW-12), HC Satish (PW-13) and SI Ravi Beniwal (PW-14).
76. Ms. Lalvarmoy (PW-8) was the Tehsildar, Kalkaji, New Delhi who recorded the statement of Geeta Devi and made her endorsement on the statement of Geeta Devi (Ex. PW-1/A), made enquiry from the accused Deepak Ray also and recorded his statement (Ex. PW-8/A), directed postmortem on the body of deceased Smt. Kavita vide her authority letter (Ex. PW-8/B).
77. On perusal of the record and more specifically the evidence of the Investigation Officer ASI Om Parkash (PW-12), it transpires that he has practically admitted that the investigation has not been conducted properly. He has deposed as follows:
"...I recorded the statements of neighbours namely Benam Singh, Manoj and Rajiv.... From the neighbours, I came to know that accused used to quarrel with the deceased.... I had recorded the statement of the neighbour but I do not recollect now his name...The jhuggi was of single room but it was built of four storey. I did not enquire from the ground, second, third floor occupiers and none of them met Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:38:59 +0530
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 43 of 54 ::-
-:: 44 ::-
us. I did not serve any notice to the other tenants residing in the same jhuggi... I did not obtain the CDR of mobile phone of Geeta Devi and deceased Kavaita of dated 28.03.2021. I did not seize the mobile phone of Geeta Devi and deceased..."
78. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) has deposed in her testimony that "...Semal Kumar, brother of the accused, visited the police station on 04.04.2021... thereafter after cremation I again visited the police station where I found Semal Kumar was present in the police station. (Vol. One other person namely Jang Bahadur was also present with Semal Kumar). I did not talk to them...."
79. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation as to why Mr. Semal Kumar and Mr. Jang Bahadur as well as Mr. Rajiv have not been produced and examined to prove the allegations. Further, prosecution has also failed to furnish any explanation why the neighbours and tenants in the same property were not examined during the investigation. Also, no explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as why the phones of the deceased Ms. Kavita, Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1), Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) as well as the accused were not seized nor sent for examination to the FSL nor the CDRs were obtained in order to prove the prosecution case. This lapse serves a fatal blow to the prosecution version.
80. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v.
State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 that undoubtedly, heinous crimes are committed under great secrecy and that investigation of a crime is a difficult and tedious task. However, from the facts and Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:39:12 +0530
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 44 of 54 ::-
-:: 45 ::-
circumstances of this case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has taken the accused for ride and trampled upon his fundamental personal liberty and lugged him in the capital offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC by freely fabricating evidence against the innocent. The liberty of a citizen is precious and its deprivation shall be only in accordance with law. Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.302 IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e. Central or State Governments to organize periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
81. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has been conducted Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:39:23 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 45 of 54 ::-
-:: 46 ::-
properly, fairly and impartially. It must be mentioned here again that the prosecution story is not reliable and is not worthy of credence, as discussed above.
82. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation.
Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important.
83. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
84. In the present case, the investigation which has been conducted is neither fair nor proper nor impartial.
Mens rea and defence of the accused
85. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:39:32 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 46 of 54 ::-
-:: 47 ::-
86. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and un- amenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
87. In the present case, a story has been projected that accused Mr. Deepak Ray has committed the alleged offence. This version appears to be untrue as there is no reason why he would do so. No reason is shown by the prosecution as to why the accused would jeopardize his future. The prosecution has not been able to show that there was any dispute between accused Mr. Deepak Ray and his deceased wife Ms. Kavita. In fact, the siblings of his wife i.e. Ms. Geeta Devi (PW-1) and Mr. Sanjit Kumar (PW-2) have not been to show that the accused used to drink liquor, harass, beat and torture his wife. There was no complaint made against the accused prior to the complaint in the present matter that he used to drink liquor, harass, beat and torture his wife. Neither his wife nor her siblings Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under Section 306 IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:39:42 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 47 of 54 ::-
-:: 48 ::-
nor her family members nor anyone else has made any such complaint against the accused to the police or any other authority.
88. There is nothing on the record to show that accused Mr. Deepak Ray has committed the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. He is a mature man and capable of understanding the implications of his acts. He has completely denied committing the offence.
89. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
90. There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on the part of accused Mr. Deepak Ray.
91. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He preferred to not lead evidence in his defence.
92. There is no medical and forensic evidence against the accused.
There is no direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. It Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No.: 177 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 Under Section 306 IPC. 15:39:51 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 48 of 54 ::-
-:: 49 ::-
is also clear while discussing the evidence of the prosecution, as above, that the prosecution version is neither reliable nor believable.
93. In the judgment Partap v. The State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 966 has reported that the burden is on the accused to establish a plea of self defence and that on the prosecution to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability.
94. The defence of the accused of innocence although is not proved by him as he has not led any defence evidence but considering the unreliable evidence of the prosecution which suffers from overwhelming contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, the prosecution version is neither believable nor reliable nor trust worthy.
95. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.
96. Therefore, as the prosecution version is unreliable and unbelievable that accused Mr. Deepak Ray had committed the alleged offences, the defence of the accused of innocence appears to be plausible that he has not committed any offence.
NIVEDITA Digitally signed
by NIVEDITA
ANIL ANIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22
15:40:04 +0530
Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 49 of 54 ::-
-:: 50 ::-
Final conclusion
97. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. The inherent contradictions strike at the very root of the prosecution story making it unbelievable and improbable. In the instant case, the evidence and different statements of the witnesses of the prosecution suffer from such infirmities and the probabilities due to which the prosecution has come out with a story, which is highly improbable. The overwhelming contradictions are too major to be ignored and they strike a fatal blow to the prosecution version. In fact what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that accused Mr. Deepak Ray has not committed the alleged offence.
98. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence.
99. Since the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable as there are overwhelming contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Deepak Ray. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence.
100. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:40:13 +0530 PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 50 of 54 ::-
-:: 51 ::-
tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
101. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it stands established that the accused had not committed any offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC that on 20.04.2015, during the subsistence of marriage, the accused harassed and tortured the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor on several occasions and on 28.03.2021 and 31.03.2021, the accused gave beatings and harassed the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and pursuant to the same, she committed suicide on 31.03.2021.
102. There is no incriminating evidence against accused Mr. Deepak Ray. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 PS : Govindpuri. SHARMA 15:40:28 +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 51 of 54 ::-
-:: 52 ::-
highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
103. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offence as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and unworthy of credence.
104. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
105. If the prosecution evidence is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other material on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, the deposition does not inspire confidence and is unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime.
106. It is a case of abetment of suicide which carries grave implication for accused Mr. Deepak Ray, if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that of a high standard and not mere possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by
NIVEDITA ANIL
Under Section 306 IPC. ANIL
SHARMA
SHARMA
Date: 2026.01.22
15:40:38 +0530
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 52 of 54 ::-
-:: 53 ::-
evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
107. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is accused Mr. Deepak Ray and none else who is culprit and has committed the alleged offence.
108. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 20.04.2015, during the subsistence of marriage, the accused harassed and tortured the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor on several occasions and on 28.03.2021 and 31.03.2021, the accused gave beatings and harassed the deceased Ms. Kavita after consuming liquor and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and pursuant to the same, she committed suicide on 31.03.2021.
109. All the above facts indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case in respect of the offence of abetment of suicide of his wife Ms. Kavita by accused Mr. Deepak Ray and the accused merits to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC.
110. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Deepak Ray and he merits to be acquitted.
111. Accordingly, accused Mr. Deepak Ray is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
Digitally signed byNIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 15:40:49 PS : Govindpuri. +0530 State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 53 of 54 ::-
-:: 54 ::-
section 306 of the IPC.
112. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
113. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
114. One copy of the judgment be given to the Substitute Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the accused, as requested.
115. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date: 2026.01.22 SHARMA 15:41:01 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 16th day of January, 2026.
Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 16.01.2026.
************************************************************ Sessions Case No. 371 of 2021.
FIR No.: 177 of 2021.
Under Section 306 IPC.
PS : Govindpuri.
State versus Deepak Ray. -:: Page 54 of 54 ::-