[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Altamas Khan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 25.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 449/2016
ALTAMAS KHAN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Parul, Mr. Ishu Arora and Ms.
Manzsha, Advocates.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Mahendra Yadav, P.S. Vasant
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1974 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the sole
accused in Sessions Case No. 24/2014 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, assailing the
judgment dated 17.03.2016 and order on sentence dated 05.04.2016
as per which he has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 02.07.2013 at about
04:00 AM at Room No. 54/1, Munirka Village, Delhi, Shivani,
daughter of PW5, committed suicide due to harassment both
physical and mental by the accused. Hence, as per the charge-
sheet/final report the accused is alleged to have committed the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW5/A FIS/FIR of PW5, the father
of the deceased, given on 02.07.2013, Crime No. 141/2013, Vasant
Vihar Police Station, that is Ext. PW7/A FIR was registered by
PW7, Head Constable. PW18 conducted investigation into the
crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final
report alleging the commission of the aforementioned offence.
4. When the accused was produced before the
jurisdictional magistrate, all the copies of the prosecution records
were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. After
hearing both sides, the trial court, as per order dated 21.01.2014,
framed a charge under Section 306 IPC, which was read over and
explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 24 were
examined and Exts.PW1/A, PW1/B, PW2/A,PW2/B, PW3/A,
PW3/B, PW4/A,PW4/B, PW5/A to PW5/G, PW6/A,
PW6/B,PW7/A, PW7/B, PW8/A, PW9/A to PW9/E,PW10/A,
PW14/A to PW14/F, PW16/A, PW16/B, PW18/A, PW18/B,
PW19/A to PW19/D, PW19/D1, PW20/A to PW20/F, PW21/A to
PW21/H, PW22/A, PW22/B and PW24/A were marked in support
of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with respect to the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he was
falsely implicated in the present case by the police and the family of
the deceased. The suicide note is fabricated. Shivani committed
suicide due to harassment by her own family members.
7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused.
8. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of
the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless
omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in
serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (see Moidu K.
versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine
Ker 2888). Here, the appellant/accused has no case that non-
compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 17.03.2016, found the accused guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, vide order on
sentence dated 05.04.2016, the accused has been sentenced to
simple imprisonment for a period of 04 years along with fine of
₹50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment
for six months. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C has been granted.
Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that Ext. PW4/B the alleged suicide note and the
pen used to write it were never sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) for examination. Moreover, even to the naked
eye, the signature of the deceased on Ext. PW5/G the appointment
letter differs significantly from the signature and handwriting
appearing in the alleged suicide note. The testimony of PW4, sister
of the deceased, regarding frequent calls made by the deceased to
her has not been conclusively established. Rather, the Call Detail
Records (CDR) indicate that both the accused and the deceased
were in regular contact with each other.
10.1. It was further submitted that there are inconsistencies in
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery
of the suicide note.PW9 stated that the suicide note was written on
a single sheet of paper, whereas PW18 stated that a diary was
recovered, inside which the suicide note was found. Ext. PW14/A
the seizure memo also records that the suicide note was written on
one of the pages of a diary. Further, it was submitted that the
deceased lacked job satisfaction, as she had been trained to become
an air hostess but remained employed in a call centre against her
aspirations. The post-mortem examination also reveals that the
deceased had consumed considerable amount of liquor before her
suicide. These aspects could have led her to commit suicide.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused, argued the defence counsel.
11. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment calling for an interference by this Court. The
materials on record is sufficient to convict the accused persons,
argued the prosecutor.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. I shall briefly refer to the evidence on record relied on
by the prosecution in support of the case. In Ext. PW5/A FIS/FIR of
PW5, recorded on 02.07.2013, it is stated thus:"My youngest
daughter Shivani had come from Haridwar to Delhi two years ago
for a job, and currently, she was working in a call centre named
Convergys in Gurgaon. About six months ago, I came to know that
my daughter is friends with a boy named Altamas. When I asked
her about this, she told me that Altamas also lived in a building
next to hers and that he was a good friend. On 29.04.2013, it was
my daughter Pooja's wedding, in which Altamas and Anjali also
came along with Shivani. All three of them stayed in Haridwar for
three days. After that, all three returned to Delhi together. On
10.06.2013, Shivani again came to Haridwar, and she looked very
disturbed. When we asked her the reason for her trouble, she told
us that Altamas harasses her and also beats and fights with her.
Shivani came back to Delhi from Haridwar on 16.06.2013, and
before leaving, she told me that she would soon leave her job in
Delhi and return to live in Haridwar. When Shivani was in
Haridwar, Altamas used to call her daily and trouble her. About
three to four days ago, she had also called Shivani's home and told
that Altamas troubles her. My daughter Shivani, being upset with
Altamas, committed suicide. Altamas is responsible for Shivani's
suicide. Altamas must have harassed Shivani by calling her at
night. My daughter, Pooja, also told me that Altamas keeps fighting
and harassing Shivani."
14. Exhibit PW6/A, the Section 164 statement of PW6, a
friend of the deceased, is seen recorded on 08.08.2013, in which
she states thus: - "She and Shivani were roommates. Shivani's
boyfriend, Altamas Khan, lived in the adjacent building. Shivani
used to routinely have fights with Altamas, who was pressuring her
for marriage. However, Shivani did not want to marry him as she
had an unmarried elder sister. Altamas was very possessive about
Shivaniand she was quite scared of him. About a week before the
incident, Altamas came to her room and told her to shift. On that
day, some of Altamas's friends had also come over, and Shivani
and Altamas had fought. Shivani later told her that Altamas had
said he would have killed her had his friends not been around,
which left Shivani quite upset. Shivani was also upset about her
job, as she wanted to work in the airline industry but was stuck at
Convergys. On 01.07.2013, she shifted from that room. On
30.06.2013, she spent the night with Shivani and they had dinner at
a restaurant in Munirka, the name of which shecould not recall.
Shivani expressed sadness that she was leaving the room because of
Altamas. Then, on 02.07.2013, at around 4:00 AM, Shivani
committed suicide."
15. PW5, father of the deceased, when examined before the
trial court on 07.04.2014, deposed that Shivani, his youngest
daughter, had come to Delhi approximately two years prior to her
death. Shivani had completed a course to become an air hostess and
was employed at a Company named "Convergys". About three to
four months before her death, Shivani informed him that she was on
friendly terms with Altamas (the accused), who resided in a room
adjacent to her room. On 29.04.2013, for the marriage of Pooja, his
eldest daughter, Shivani, Altamas, and Anjali, a friend of Shivani,
came to Haridwar to attend the function. They stayed at his house
for about three days before returning to Delhi. On 16.06.2013,
Shivani visited Haridwar again. Shivani did not tell him anything,
but she was busy on her phone all day. When asked, she said she
was conversing with her friends. She left Haridwar on 16.06.2013
and came back on 13.06.2013. Before leaving, Shivani told him that
she would soon leave her job in Delhi and return to live in
Haridwar around Diwali. On 02.06.2013, he received a phone call
from the Investigating Officer (IO) of the present case, SI Kuldeep,
informing him that his daughter had met with an accident and that
he should immediately reach Delhi. He, along with his wife,
daughter Pooja and her husband Harsh, travelled to Delhi. While on
the way, he informed other relatives and friends to reach at the
Vasant Vihar police station. Upon reaching Delhi, he learnt that
Shivani had committed suicide and had been taken to AIIMS. The
police informed him that Altamas had called someone to check on
Shivani. He does not know that person. However, that person, upon
checking, realised that Shivani had committed suicide. PW5
deposed that he had seen Ext. PW4/B suicide note and confirmed
that the same had been signed by Shivani.
15.1. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor
requested permission of the trial court to put leading questions to
PW5, which request is seen allowed by the trial court. On further
examination, PW5 deposed that when Shivani came to Haridwar on
10.06.2013, he found her quite disturbed. On asking, she told him
that Altamas used to beat her and quarrel with her. Altamas called
her every day while she was in Haridwar and used to harass her.
Three to four days before her death, Shivani had told him that
Altamas used to harass her. PW5 also deposed that Shivani
committed suicide due to Altamas's harassment, and that the latter
might have called her the night before her death.
15.2. PW5, during his cross-examination, deposed that he
received information from SI Kuldeep at 08:00 PM and reached the
Vasant Vihar police station around 03:00 PM along with his wife,
daughter Pooja and her husband. He saw the dead body of his
daughter the next day. He never visited the room where Shivani
lived. His statement was recorded at the police station between
04:00 PM and 05:00 PM. He does not know when the diary was
taken into possession by the police. He saw the suicide note at the
police station. At the time of the wedding of his daughter Pooja,
both Shivani and the accused were behaving normally. According
to PW5, he had only been told of the quarrels, and to his
knowledge, there were normal relations between the accused and
Shivani. He had only read the suicide note and he had not read the
other pages in the diary. The diary and mobile were not seized in
his presence. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was never
harassed by the accused. PW5 denied the suggestion that he and his
family were not happy regarding the friendship between his
daughter and the accused due to religious differences. He further
denied the suggestion that Shivani committed suicide due to
harassment from her own family members or by himself.
16. PW6, a friend of Shivani, when examined before the
trial court, deposed that she had known Shivani for about three
years. In July, 2013, she was employed at the Jack and John
Showroom, Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, and was residing in
Munirka. She shared a room with Shivani for about two months
before moving out on 30.06.2013. PW6 deposed that she knew the
accused Altamas as he was a friend of Shivani. The accused lived
on the top floor of the adjoining building. After she left, Shivani
resided in the room alone. PW6 deposed that Shivani and the
accused shared a very close relationship, spent time together, went
out together, and shared meals. Both Shivani and she travelled to
Haridwar to attend the marriage of Shivani's sister, and the accused
joined them later. After approximately three days, they returned to
Delhi. She never personally saw the accused and Shivani fighting,
though Shivani would sometimes mention quarrels between them.
PW6 further deposed that whatever she stated in her 164 statement
was true and nothing was false.
16.1. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor is seen
to have requested permission to "cross-examine" PW6 as she was
recanting from her earlier statement, which was allowed by the trial
court. On further examination, PW6 deposed that Shivani and the
accused were in a live-in relationship. She denied the suggestion
that the accused used to beat Shivani and that Shivani had injury
marks on her body. However, she admitted that Shivani would
sometimes come out of the accused's room crying. Shivani told her
that the accused had threatened to kill her. PW6 further confirmed
that Shivani told her that on 22-23.06.2013, the accused fought with
and beat Shivani, placing a knife to her neck, from which Shivani
managed to escape.
16.2. PW6, in her cross-examination, deposed that she had
never witnessed a quarrel between the accused and Shivani. She
had lived with Shivani for about six months, but did not recall the
house number or the owner, though she knew the caretaker,
Prashant. PW6 deposed that no police verification was carried out
during her tenancy and she did not have any documentary evidence
regarding her tenancy in the said house. PW6 further deposed that
the accused was not present on the day of the incident and had left
for Kanpur four to five days prior. Shivani loved the accused and
spent most of her time with him. She didnotknow whether the
deceased's parents were against a matrimonial alliance between the
two. She did not know the reason for Shivani's suicide. She denied
the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or that she had not
resided with Shivani.
17. PW4, the sister of the deceased, when examined before
the trial court on 07.04.2014, deposed that she last met Shivani on
16.06.2013 at her house in Haridwar. Shivani was receiving phone
calls from Altamas on the said date, however the former was not
attending his calls. On being asked, Shivani said that she would go
to Delhi and speak to the accused. On 02.07.2013, she received
information regarding Shivani's death. About six months before her
marriage, Shivani had told her that Altamas was her friend. For her
marriage, the accused, Shivani, and a friend of Shivani had attended
the ceremony and stayed in Haridwar for 2 to 3 days. After the
marriage, Shivani used to tell her during conversations that the
accused frequently quarrelled with her, harassed and also beat her.
Shivani had stayed with her for one night on 16.06.2013 and stayed
with her parents for 2 to 3 days. Shivani had expressed her intention
to leave her job in Delhi and return to Haridwar. PW4 further
deposed that after reading the suicide note and being shown the call
records between Shivani and Altamas by the police, she named the
accused as the person responsible for Shivani's death. The police
had also told her that neighbours had reported frequent quarrels
between Shivani and the accused. According to PW4, she used to
talk to Shivani almost every week, sometimes every 2 to 3 days.
17.1. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor is seen
to have requested permission to put some leading questions to
PW4, which request is seen allowed by the trial court. PW4 further
deposed that Shivani had come home on 10.06.2013, at which time
she appeared disturbed and attributed it to harassment by the
accused. While in Haridwar, Shivani was harassed by the accused
over phone calls, which the former sometimes avoided answering.
Shivani returned to Delhi on 16.06.2013. About 3-4 days prior to
her death, Shivani told her that Altamas "usey kaafi pareshan
karney laga h". PW4 on being shown a photocopy of the suicide
note marked as Ext. PW4/B, identified it as written and signed by
Shivani.
17.2. PW4, during cross-examination, deposed that she did
not know where the accused was residing at the time of Shivani's
death. She admitted that the accused and Shivani behaved normally
during the time of her marriage functions. She came to know that
Shivani was disturbed only after speaking to her post-marriage. She
had never complained about the harassment to any of their relatives
and had not visited Delhi after her marriage. She admitted that she
had not personally witnessed any harassment by the accused and
could not specify exact dates or the times when Shivani informed
her about such incidents. She was unaware of the personal
relationship between Shivani and the accused. She denied the
suggestion that family members were annoyed with Shivani as the
accused was from a different religion. In her presence, no
photographs were taken, nor was any mobile phone or diary seized.
PW4 also deposed that in a TV interview after the incident, she had
not attributed any role to the accused. PW4 deposed that Shivani
had never told her that she intended to marry the accused.
18. PW8, a tenant in the building where the accused was
residing, when examined before the trial court, deposed that he was
working on a project at JNU University and was also employed as a
Senior Technical Engineer in the Sanskrit Lab. He was residing on
the third floor of the building, where the accused was residing on
the fifth floor. On 02.07.2013 at about 04:00 AM, he received a call
on his number from the accused. The accused told him that Shivani
was not answering his calls and requested him to go to her
residence to check on her. Acting on this request, he went to the
first floor of the building where Shivani resided. He noticed that the
lights were turned on and the windows were open. Upon peeping
inside, he saw Shivani hanging from the fan. He became frightened
and so did not answer further calls from the accused. He then went
to the police station at approximately 06:30-07:30 AM and
informed the police about the incident. Thereafter, a police officer
accompanied him to the place of occurrence.
18.1. At this stage, the prosecutor is seen to have sought
permission of the trial court to cross-examine PW8 on the ground
that he was not disclosing the complete facts. The request was
allowed by the trial court. On further examination, PW8 deposed
that he had received a call from the accused from mobile number
8400092092. However, he denied the suggestion that the accused
had told him that his girlfriend Shivani had threatened to commit
suicide. He admitted that he had peeped through the roshan dan
into the room. He denied stating that he had informed the accused
Altamas over the phone that the girl was found hanging in the
room. He further denied that the caretaker Prashant (PW1) had
come to the room. PW8 denied having seen an open diary on the
bed or a suicide note written on it, or the police seizing it. He also
denied seeing a mobile phone on the bed or the same being seized
by the police. He further denied having stated to the police that the
caretaker (PW1) had handed over any verification form to the IO on
which the address and contact number of Shivani's parents were
mentioned, or that they had given a written complaint or that
Shivani's parents had identified the suicide note. He also denied
having stated that the accused and Shivani used to quarrel
frequently or that she was beaten by the accused, leading to her
suicide. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or
had been won over by the accused.
19. PW1, the caretaker of the building in which the
deceased was residing, deposed that he had handed over the
deceased's tenant verification form to the IO. On 02.07.2013, he
visited the room of the deceased with the police. The door of the
room, which was closed from the inside, was broken, and Shivani
was found hanging from the ceiling fan. In his presence, nothing
had been done or seized by the police. He had not entered the room
because of fear, and from the outside, he had seen one box and a
mattress lying on the floor. He had not seen the accused with the
deceased at any point in time. He was unable to recall if any suicide
note was lying on the bed. PW1 deposed that he is unaware as to
whether the accused and the deceased were friends, or that the
accused was residing in an adjacent building, or that the accused
publicly had beaten the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he
was deposing falsely to save the accused.
19.1. PW1, in his cross-examination, deposed that Anjali
(PW6) was never a tenant in the building and that he had never
spoken to her.
20. PW2 the then Moharrir Head Constable (Malkhana),
Vasant Vihar police station, deposed that SI Kuldeep (PW18)
deposited the case property, that is, one cloth chunni, one chatakni,
one diary containing a suicide note, one mobile phone micromax
black colour, and one pen, relating to which he made an entry in
register no. 19. PW2, in his cross-examination, admitted that the
suicide note was never sent for any examination.
21. PW3, then Constable, Vasant Vihar police station
deposed that Atma Prakash (PW8) had come to the police station
and given information about the suicide. He accompanied SI
Kuldeep (PW18) to the room of the deceased. The doors and
windows of the room were closed from inside, but the light was
turned on. By peeping from the ventilator (roshandaan), a girl was
found hanging from the ceiling fan. The caretaker of the building,
namely, Prashant (PW1), gave the name and details of the deceased
and handed over her tenant verification form on which the contact
number and name of her father were mentioned. PW5, the father of
the decased, was informed about the incident. The door of the room
was broken. A suicide note and a diary were found on the bed. A
mobile phone was also lying nearby. The said items along with a
piece of the chunni, chatkani of the broken door were seized. The
body of Shivani was sent to AIIMS hospital. The blank diary
containing the suicide note on page dated 16/17.05.2012 was
identified by PW3 and the diary was marked as Ext. P1.
21.1. PW3, in his cross-examination, deposed that the articles
were seized from the scene at about 06:30 AM, and that the seizure
memo had been prepared at the police station. He denied the
suggestion that no documents were prepared in the morning, or that
no diary containing the suicide note was found on the spot. He
denied the suggestion that the diary/suicide note was later on
fabricated and planted in this case.
22. PW9, a then Constable, Vasant Vihar police station,
deposed that on 02.07.2013 he had visited the scene of the incident
along with the IO and found the door closed. They broke open the
door of the room and saw a girl hanging from the fan. He noticed a
suicide note and a mobile phone lying on the bed in the room. He
took the dead body to the AIIMS mortuary.
22.1. PW9, in his cross-examination, deposed that the police
reached the spot between 08:00 AM and 09:00 AM. The suicide
note was on one piece of paper. The mobile and the suicide note
were not seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he
was not present at the spot or that no suicide note or mobile phone
was found at the spot.
23. PW14, Head Constable, Vasant Vihar police station
deposed that SI Kuldeep (PW18) had showed him a diary at the
police station, which was identified by Rajinder (PW5), father of
the deceased. The IO also showed a suicide note and pen to PW5,
who confirmed the handwriting and pen to be of the deceased. On
02.07.2013, after about 11:30 PM, he, along with SI Kuldeep
(PW18), Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Sanjeev proceeded to Kanpur to
apprehend the accused Altamas. They later arrested the accused
from his residence.
24. PW14, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had
not referred to the seizure of the suicide note, pen or mobile phone
in his statement recorded by the IO on 04.07.2013.
25. PW18, the IO, deposed that on 02.07.2013 he was
posted at the Vasant Vihar police station and was on night
emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. He was informed of
the incident by Atma Prakash (PW8). On receipt of the information,
he, along with Atma Prakash (PW8) and Constable Ashok, (PW3)
proceeded to the scene of the incident. Upon reaching the premises,
he found the door of the room was bolted from inside. When he
looked through the roshandan, he saw a woman hanging from the
ceiling fan. The woman was later identified as Shivani. The crime
team was called to the spot, and the door was broken open in their
presence. Photographs of the scene were taken. A diary was
recovered from the bed on which a suicide note was found. A
mobile phone and a pen were also found at the spot. The body was
brought down by cutting the cloth, and it was sent to AIIMS.
Information was given to Rajender Kumar (PW5), the father of the
deceased, who arrived from Haridwar and submitted a written
complaint. PW8 deposed that during the investigation, it was
revealed that the accused was residing in Kanpur. Accordingly, on
03.07.2013, he, along with HC Ravinder (PW14) and Constable
Sandeep, went to Kanpur and with assistance from the local police,
arrested the accused.
25.1. PW18, during cross-examination, deposed that the FIR
was registered approximately 12 hours after the information was
received and after the arrival of the deceased's family. He admitted
that he had not sent the suicide note for handwriting analysis to the
FSL. He admitted that no prior complaints of harassment by the
accused were given.
26. The fact that Shivani committed suicide by hanging
herself is not disputed. The only point that arises for consideration
is whether the appellant/accused can be held responsible for
abetment of her suicide as contemplated under Section 306 IPC. As
per Section 306 IPC, whoever abets the commission of suicide of
any person is liable be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine. The parameters of abetment, as stated in Section
107 IPC, are - a person abets the doing of a thing, if he instigates
any person to do that thing, or engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,
or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal
omission. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act that led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide. (See S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,
(2010) 12 SCC 190, M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200).
26.1. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896, the Apex Court held that before holding
an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court
must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case
and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left
the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is
also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide, and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role
by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be proved and established by
the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.
27. In the case on hand, the prosecution relies on the
testimony of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW8, along with Ext. PW4/B,
the suicide note. PW4 and PW5 have deposed about harassment by
the accused. However, their statements are based only on what the
deceased is alleged to have told them and not on their own personal
knowledge. Both PW4 and PW5 have admitted in cross-
examination that they never personally witnessed any harassment.
They also admitted that no complaint was ever made to the police
and that they could not state any specific date, time, or incident of
such alleged harassment. PW6, who was the roommate of the
deceased and the only witness who had direct knowledge of the
relationship, had also never personally seen them fighting, although
according to her, the deceased would sometimes mention quarrels.
She had also deposed that the accused and the deceased were in a
close relationship, spent time together, went out, shared meals, and
were even in a live-in relationship. She denied that the accused used
to beat the deceased or that there were any visible injury marks on
her body. At the same time, PW6 deposed that the deceased would
sometimes come out crying and had told her that the accused had
threatened her. She also referred to one incident where the accused
allegedly fought with the deceased and placed a knife on her neck.
However, she admitted that she had never personally witnessed any
such quarrel. PW6 further stated that the deceased loved the
accused and spent most of her time with him. She does not know
whether the family opposed their relationship and also stated that
she does not know the reason for the suicide. Thus, even the
testimony of PW6 does not clearly establish consistent or direct
evidence of harassment by the accused. The testimony of PW8, an
independent witness, also has not supported the prosecution case
regarding harassment.
28. Ext. PW4/B the suicide note of the deceased reads thus:-
"I am sorry papa mummy for what I am about to do. I know you
guys never forgive but I am sorry I have no choice. I have chosen
the wrong person for me. I am not able to tolerate his threats
anymore. Before he takes my life. I am sorry."
29. Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the
IEA) is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible
the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide
or a suicide, provided that the statement relates to the cause of
death or to circumstances leading to death. (See Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116)
Hence, a suicide note is admissible, coming under the ambit of
Section 32(1).
30. However, the prosecution version of seizure of Ext.
PW4/B, the alleged suicide note raises doubts in the mind of the
Court. A careful examination of the testimony of prosecution
witnesses reveal serious inconsistencies regarding the nature of the
note, its presence at the scene of recovery and place of recovery.
PW3 deposed that one suicide note and diary were found on the
bed, and the same were seized along with other articles. PW18, the
IO deposed that one diary was also recovered from the bed of the
deceased on which a suicide note was recovered. However, PW9
gave a different version, deposing that he had observed one suicide
note and one mobile phone lying on the bed in the room. There was
no mention of any diary in PW9's version. PW2 stated that one
diary containing suicide note was deposited in the malkhana. In
contrast, PW8 denied seeing any diary lying open on the bed or
suicide note written on it in his presence. PW1, the caretaker,
deposed that he could not recall whether any suicide note was
present. PW14 stated that the diary and note were shown to him at
the police station. The IO has also failed to explain why the alleged
suicide note was not sent to the FSL for examination. There is
difference in the signature of the deceased seen in Ext. PW5/G, the
appointment letter of the deceased and in Ext. PW4/B, the alleged
suicide note. In such circumstances, examination of PW4/B by an
expert was necessary. Further, PW5/C seizure memo relating to the
recovery of the mobile phone seen on the bed near the place of
occurrence according to PW18, the IO and PW3, a Constable were
seized in the morning itself. Even going by the prosecution case,
PW5, the father of the deceased reached Delhi only in the evening.
If that be so, how could PW5 be a witness in Ext. PW5/C, the
seizure memo. Further, there is also ambiguity as to whether the
suicide note was part of the diary or was it a single sheet of paper
torn from the diary and kept inside the diary. If it was part of the
diary, why was it torn from the diary and only the single sheet
produced? In the testimony of PW3, the diary is referred to as Ext.
P1. However, on going through the trial court record, I am unable
to find Ext. P1. Therefore, on an entire reading of the materials on
record, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
offence of abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. The
testimony of the witnesses does indicate the role of the accused.
PW8, a neighbour of the accused deposed that it was at the request
of the accused that he had gone to the room of the deceased at
04:00 A.M. on 02.07.2013. According to PW8, the accused called
him and said that Shivani was not responding to his calls and so
requested the former to go to her room and check. Why was the
accused calling Shivani at the early hours of 02.07.2013? Did some
fight/quarrel or talk take place between them which ultimately led
to the suicide? Suspicions do arise. But suspicions, however, strong
cannot take place of proof and hence I find that the
appellant/accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
31. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned
judgment is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence charged against him. He is set
at liberty and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
32. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 02, 2026
p'ma/rs
