Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ARUNA CHADHA BY SH. P.K. SANDHIR ADVOCATE

25. The arguments on behalf of accused Aruna Chadha are that it is a case of only one suicide note. The suicide note is on one page written on both sides of the paper which was found in the spiral diary of the deceased. The deceased took admission in MBA in IILM on 25.06.2012 so the date 04.05.2012 is wrong. It is either due to the deceased was writing suicide note on the night intervening 4/5.08.2012 and has forgotten to write month or because of accidental slip instead of "8" she has written "5" so there are no two suicide notes of two different dates but it is only one suicide note written by the deceased on both sides of the same page. It is argued that Dubai incident of joining Emirates and leaving it is of 2010 and has no connection with the suicide of the deceased. In 2009 deceased victim was transferred to Goa. She had dispute with one Ankita and Nupur the employees of MDLR working in the hotel there. Joint compromise application had already been filed by Ankita and Nupur and deceased victim in the criminal court in Goa but it was rejected thereafter a joint petition for quashing of proceedings was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and was pending there so there cannot be any pressure on the deceased victim on account of said criminal case. The direction for daily reporting to Chairman and Managing Director is part of the duty in such cases. Accused Gopal Goyal Kanda was Minister in State of Haryana so he needed appointment of a co-ordinator and for daily reporting State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others of the affairs of the company. In the FIR role of Aruna Chadha comes only when deceased victim rejoined in January 2011 after leaving Emirates Airlines. Aruna Chadha's lone visit to Dubai with co-accused Gopal Goyal is not strong evidence. The Dubai incident even otherwise is not relevant for suicide. The family of victim does not consist of rustic villagers and is educated family which knows pros and cons of every act. Both families of accused Gopal Goyal and that of victim used to meet each other and in January 2011 deceased victim joined MDLR as Director. Every time there was rejoining by deceased victim, her pay package was enhanced by MDLR. Both families went to Shirdi, Goa and on foreign trip together.

46. Reading two dying declarations of victim dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 relied upon by prosecution, it is clear that the reasons for committing suicide or putting herself to death by the deceased victim are indicated in it. Although, the facts of the present case are distinguishable with Pakala Narayana Swami's case (Supra) and Patel Hiralal Joitaram's case (Supra) as argued by Ld Senior Counsel for accused and it may not directly State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others apply to the present question but since Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor's case (Supra) and Chitresh Chopra's case (Supra) has treated the suicide notes as dying declarations of the deceased persons, the same view has to be followed in the present case. In the two suicide notes dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012, the deceased had indicated the reasons/causes/circumstances due to which she was putting end to her life. There is no need for me for a detailed discussion on these circumstances mentioned in the suicide notes as the same shall be dealt with in the following relevant part of this order. But, in the light of Amit Kapoor's case (Supra) and Chitresh Chopra's case (Supra) and the reasons/ circumstances indicated in the two suicide notes, the same in my view should be treated as dying declaration under Section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act. Such dying declarations are treated as valuable piece of evidence in criminal trial where the cause of death of a deceased is fact in issue. Section 158 of Indian Evidence Act allows the production of evidence to prove all matters to contradict or corroborate the dying declaration. The prosecution has relied upon the statement of brother, mother and father of the deceased and also other evidence to corroborate with the dying declaration of deceased victim.

69. I have carefully heard the respective arguments and have perused the authorities cited from both the sides.

In Roop Kishore Madan's case (Supra) the alleged suicide note of a sexual exploited woman by a married man (accused) was in question. In that suicide note the victim woman was a consenting party to her sexual exploitation by a married man and ultimately out of frustration she committed suicide. In the present facts and situation of the present case it cannot be said that victim was a consenting party so due to this distinction the Roop Madan's case (Supra) does not fit to the present facts and circumstances of the case to help the accused persons.

(iv) In suicide note dated 04.05.2012, deceased victim has indicated that accused Gopal Goyal Kanda always keeps his bad intentions towards girls. He is a man of no shame and no guilt. He has illegal relationship with a woman named 'Ankita' and a girl child also with her.

State Vs Gopal Goyal Kanda and others Still he keeps on hitting on girls. He is shameless and worst man I have ever seen in my life. In the name of relationships, trust, God, he cheats people and harasses. He always lies, he lies to his family, kids, people around everyone. Now this time Aruna is also helping him to hurt her (deceased victim), harass her, sabotage her family. It is to be noted that deceased victim has not talked about her pregnancy from accused Gopal Goyal Kanda and about termination of her pregnancies in her suicide note. The statements of her family members are silent about this aspect. Obviously, since she committed suicide at her home she did not want to embarrass her family members even after her death by disclosing true facts as to how she was habituated to vaginal and anal penetration. The argument of Ld counsel for accused Aruna Chadha that she committed suicide as she did not want that her family members should know about termination of pregnancies seems to be partially correct and itself runs against the accused persons.