Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that the so called suicide note was in fact a concocted and false document, as when the brother of the deceased namely Golu had already found a suicide note on the table of the deceased on 17-8-2014, then why the same was not handed over to the police immediately whereas the said so- called suicide note was seized by the police from the possession of Raghuvir on 9-10-2014, and why there is no mention of the said suicide note as well as the presence of Golu in the Gum Insaan Report which was lodged by Charan Ahirwar. Further, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is nothing on record to suggest that the suicide note was written by the deceased himself. Further, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that if the entire contents of the suicide note are accepted, even then, no case of abetment of suicide is made out against the applicant.

10. Before considering the fact that whether the applicant has abeted the commission of suicide or not, it would be relevant to consider the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased Rakesh Ahirwar. The Suicide note is reproduced as under :

Þesjs fiz; ekrk&firk ,oa Hkkb;ksa] eSa vkils cgqr djrk gwW vkSj eSa cM+s nq[k ds lkFk dg jgk gWw fd vkidk vkSj esjk lkFk cl ;gha rd FkkA D;ksafd eq>s ifjokj rks vPNk feyk ysfdu eq>s ifRu vPNh ugha feyhA esjh ifRu pfj=ghu gSA og eq>s ikxy cuk jgh gS vkSj oks :ipan Bsdsnkj oS".kksansoh okys ds lkFk uktk;t laca/k j[krh gSA oks vius ?kj ls eq>ls feyus dk cgkuk cukdj :ipan ls feyus tkrh gSA os nksuksa lkaph jksM ij ,d jsLVksjs.V gS ogka ij tkrs gaSA ;g eq>s ,d ckj ckrksa&ckrksa essa Hkkjrh us crk;k Fkk fd lkaph jksM ij ,d vPNk jsLVksjsaV gSA viu ogka ?kweus pyk djsaxs ij eSa ugha tkrk FkkA ,d fnu tc esa tuin iapk;r esa Fkk rks eSaus Hkkjrh vkSj :ipan dks ogka ls lkaph dh vksj tkrs ns[kkA eSaus Hkkjrh dks dbZ ckj Qksu yxk;k ysfdu Hkkjrh us Qksu ugha mBk;kA 'kke dks eSaus Qksu yxk;k rks oks cM+h noh gqbZ vkokt esa cksyh mlus dgk vkSj ,d ysVj esjs uke ls ,d yM+ds ds }kjk eq>s fn;k ftlesa fy[kk FkkA eq>s vkt ds ckn u Qksu djuk vkSj u ;kn djuk] eSa cgqr tYnh vkidks ifr&ifRu ds bl >wBs fjLrs ls vktkn djus okyh gwWA esjk eSa ns[k ywaxh rqe flQZ vius ?kj okyksa esa eLr jgksA og esjs NksVs HkkbZ xksyw dks lcls T;knk uQjr djrh Fkh D;ksafd mlus ,d ckj ;g le> fy;k Fkk fd HkkHkh dk fdlh yM+ds ds lkFk dksbZ xyr laca/k gSA og eq>ls dgrh Fkh fd rqEgkjk ifjokj bdM+k gSA eq>s rqEgkjs ifjokj esa ls dksbZ Hkh ilan ugha gSA rqe Hkh ugha ij eSa dqN ugha dgrk Fkk oks eq>ls dbZ ckj dg pqdh Fkh fd rqe eq>s NksM+ nks ij eSa viuh vkSj vius ifjokj dh bTtr ds dkj.k bl ckr dks utj vankt dj nsrk FkkA og eq>ls ges'kk >wB cksyrh FkhA blfy;s vc esjh ftUnxh dk dksbZ eryc ugha eSa vkRegR;k djus tk jgk gWwA eq>s {kek dj nsukA esjh ifRu Hkkjrh eq>ls dgrh Fkh fd xksyw dks rks eSa lcd fl[kkÅWxh mlls cksy nsuk fd NksVk gS NksVs dh vkSdkr esa jgsA ugha rks lcdks ngst izFkk esa vanj djok nwwaxhA D;ksafd xksyw Mjrk ugha Fkk gj dqN eqag ij cksy nsrk Fkk blfy;s muds lkjs ifjokj dks xksyw [kjkc yxrk FkkA oks dgrh Fkh fd viu nksuksa fofn'kk esa vyx jgsaxs vkSj ;gha ls ukSdjh ds fy;s xkao pyk djsaxsA D;ksafd xkao esa og :ipan ¼:iflag½ Bsdsnkj oS".kksansoh ekrk eafnj okys ls ugha fey ikrh Fkh vkSj tc og mlds lkFk tkrh Fkh rks lkM+h igudj tkrh Fkh rkfd mu nksuksa ij dksbZ 'kd u dj lds ij esjs lkFk vHkh rd flQZ dqrhZ lyokj esa gh dgha tkrh FkhA ;fn dksbZ dke gksrk Fkk rks mlds fny esa esjs fy, dksbZ txg ugha Fkh vkSj u gh og eq>s ilan djrh Fkh og flQZ eq>s /kks[kk nsrh FkhA ;g eSaus dbZ ckj vktek fy;k FkkA eSa ,slh ifRu ds lkFk dSls viuh ftanxh fudkyrk ;fn eSa mls NksM+rk rks esjs ifjokj dh bTtr [kjkc gksrhA blfy;s eSaus lkspk fd eSa gh ej tkrk gWwA rks lc Bhd gks tk,xk u esjs ifjokj dh bTtr tk,xh vkSj esjh ifRu dk Hkh jkLrk lkQ gks tk,xk] blfy;s eSa vkRegR;k dj jgk gwwWA eq>s {kek dj nsukA ;s ?kVuk fnukad 13@08@2014 dh gSA bl fnu eSaus cq/kokj dks 12 cts yxHkx :ipan vkSj Hkkjrh dks ns[kk FkkAß

19. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it would be clear that there is no allegation either in the suicide note or in the statement of any witness to suggest that the applicant had in any manner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In fact there is no allegation that the applicant had ever talked to the deceased. Further, the allegation of illicit relation of the wife of the deceased with the applicant is not founded on any evidence but it was merely a suspicion expressed by the deceased. If a wife of a person is on talking terms with some other person, then it would not mean that She is having any illicit relations with that person. If the wife of the deceased was not happy with the behavior of younger brother of the deceased, namely Golu, then, it cannot be said that the applicant had in any manner instigated or shared common intention with co- accused Smt. Bharti to commit offence of abetment of suicide. No overtact has been alleged against the applicant. If the deceased was of the view that his wife is having illicit relations with the applicant, then the normal and natural conduct of the deceased would have been to vacate the house of the applicant. But the fact that the deceased did not vacate the house of the applicant, clearly shows that his suspicion was baseless. Further, it is clear from the record that Smt. Bharti, the wife of the deceased was living with her parents in her parents house and whereas the applicant is the resident of Street No.1, Near Ahmadpur Square, Vidisha. Thus, even if the suicide note is accepted as it is, then it appears that the deceased was hypersensitive, suspicious in nature and very possessive of his wife. He had an apprehension of losing his wife. However, the hypersensitivity, suspicious attitude towards life or apprehension of losing his wife, cannot be said to be an act on the part of the applicant which may be termed as instigation. Even otherwise, the extra marital relations may be morally wrong, but in absence of any active role or act, it cannot be said that it would amount to abetment of suicide.

As it is evident from the statement of the witnesses, as well as the suicide note, there is no active or direct act on the part of the applicant which may lead the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, it is clear that the allegations as leveled against the applicant do not prima facie make out a case under Section 306 of I.P.C.

23. There is another aspect of the matter. The deceased left his house on 17-8-2014 and a Gum Insaan Report was lodged by his brother who was staying in the same house. In the Gum Insaan Report there is no mention of recovery of Suicide Note left by the deceased on the table. On 18-8- 2014, the statement of Golu was recorded. He is the younger brother of the deceased, who was sleeping with the deceased Rakesh in the same room. In the said statement, he had stated that a suicide note was found on the table of the room. The father of the deceased, namely Raghuvir had also stated in his statement recorded on 18-8-2014, that he was told by Golu about the suicide note. But surprisingly, the suicide note was produced by Raghuvir on 9-10-2014. If the Suicide Note was already found on the table on 17-8- 2014, then why the father of the deceased did not handover the said suicide note to the police on 17-8-2014 or 18-8- 2014, is an important question which raises doubts with regard to the genuineness of the suicide note. Further, one register which was allegedly in the handwriting of the deceased was also handed over by the father of the deceased to the police on 28-10-2014. Why the father of the deceased did not handover the registers which were allegedly in the handwriting of the deceased on 9-10-2014 itself, is a question which further raises doubt with regard to the genuineness of the Registers. Further, when the deceased was working as Asstt. Secretary, in a Gram Panchayat, then why the police did not seize any document containing the admitted handwriting of the deceased from his office?