Delhi District Court
State vs Rajat Suri on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No. DLWT01-001409-2019
SC No. 96/2019
State Vs Rajat Suri
FIR No. 629/2018
PS: Ranhola
U/s 306/34 IPC
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Rajat Suri
S/o Sh. Yuvraj Suri
R/o H. No. B-106, 2nd Floor, Peepal Road,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Laldiman @ Munna
S/o Sh. Chandidin
R/o H. No. L-97, near Geeta Mata Mandir,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Permanent Address:
Village Pahari Veer, Tehsil & PS Rath,
Distt Hamirpur, U.P
(Accused Laldiman @ Munna was
discharged vide order on charge
dated 09.07.2019)
......Accused
Date of Institution of Case : 21-02-2019
Date of reserving Judgment : 21-05-2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 19-07-2025
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 1/20
Appearance:
For the State : Dr. S.K Bishnoi, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
For accused : Sh. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Rajat Suri and Laldiman @ Munna were
originally forwarded for trial for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC.
However, Laldiman was discharged from the case vide order
dated 09.07.02019
The factual matrix:
2.1 The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused
persons Rajat Suri and discharged accused Laldiman @ Munna
were arrested in the present case as Ram Kumar (since deceased)
committed suicide on 01.12.2018 by hanging himself after
leaving a suicide note thereby making allegations against both
the accused. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Smt.
Renu, wife of deceased who stated that her husband Ram Kumar
took a contract of making the floor in the house of accused Rajat
Suri. She alleged that accused was pressurizing her husband to
also get the floor polishing work done, however the work of floor
polishing was not in the said contract. Still, deceased got engaged
co-accused Laldiman @ Munna for polishing work in the house
of accused Rjat Suri and kept the polishing machine in his house.
Even after the completion of work, accused Rajat Suri did not
make the payment as agreed and also kept the polishing machine
on the roof of his house. Accused Laldiman @ Munna used to
threaten and pressurize the deceased for returning back the
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 2/20
polishing machine. Complainant alleged that her husband used to
remain tensed due to the torture of accused Rajat Suri and
Laldiman @ Munna. She further stated that on 01.12.2018, when
she was leaving for her parental home, she noticed her husband
writing something and on her asking deceased told her that he
had been writing complaint against accused Rajat Suri and
Laldiman. At about 6 p.m she came to know that her husband
had committed suicide and when she came back, she found her
husband hanging to the ceiling fan.
2.2 On receipt of information regarding suicide vide DD No.
35 A, ASI Arun Kumar along with Ct. Rohit reached the spot.
The crime team was called and the spot was got inspected and
photographed. From the pocket of deceased, one suicide note was
also recovered wherein certain allegations were levelled against
accused Rajat Suri and accused Laldiman @ Munna. On the basis
of suicide note of deceased, the present FIR for the offence u/s
306/34 IPC was registered against both the accused persons.
Accused were interrogated and arrested. The said suicide note of
deceased along with his handwritten page of diary were sent to
FSL for inquiry. After the completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC was filed against
accused namely Rajat Suri and Laldiman @ Munna, which was
committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. The Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 3/20
The charge against the accused:
4. Vide order on charge dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Ld.
Predecessor of this Court, accused Laldiman @ Munna was
discharged from the case. Charge for the offence u/s 306 IPC was
framed against accused Rajat Suri to which he did not plead
guilty and claimed trial.
The evidence by the prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charges against the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
i). PW-1 Smt. Renu- wife of deceased; ii). PW-2 Sh. Anil
Kumar- brother in law of deceased; iii). PW-3 Sh. Arun- brother
in law of deceased; iv). PW-4 Smt. Rinku – wife of brother-in-
law of deceased; v). PW-5 Raj Kumar – brother of deceased;
vi). PW-6 HC Jitender- he participated in the investigation; vii)
PW-7 SI Surender Singh- he prepared crime scene report of the
spot; viii). PW-8 SI Arun Kumar- he participated in the
investigation; ix). PW-9 ASI Jaswant Singh- he took
photographs of the spot; x). PW-10 HC Rohit Chhilar- he
participated in the investigation; xi). PW-11 Inspector Braham
Prakash- Investigating Officer of the case and xii). PW-12 Sh.
Vijender Singh – he prepared FSL report qua the suicide letter
of deceased.
6. The prosecution has also relied upon the following
documentary evidence: –
Statement of PW-1 Smt. Renu (Ex.PW-1/A); diary of deceased
(Ex.PW-1/B); site plan (Ex.PW-1/C); seizure memo of mobileState Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 4/20
phone and suicide note (Ex.PW-1/D); seizure memo of diary of
deceased (Ex.PW-1/E); handing over memo of dead body
(Ex.PW-1/F); statement of PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar (Ex.PW-2/A);
statement of PW-3 Sh. Arun (Ex.PW-3/A); statement of Smt.
Rinku (Ex.PW-4/A); statement of Sh. Raj Kumar (Ex.PW-5/A);
arrest memo of accused Rajat Suri (Ex.PW-6/A); personal
search memo of accused (Ex.PW-6/B); disclosure statement of
accused Rajat Suri (Ex.PW-6/C); arrest memo of accused
Munna @ Laldiman (Ex.PW-6/D); seizure memo of machine
of accused Laldiman @ Munna (Ex.PW-6/E); crime scene
report (Ex.PW-7/A); suicide note (Ex.PW-7/B); statement of SI
Surender Singh (Ex.PW-7/C); rukka (Ex.PW-8/A); seizure
memo of chunni used in suicide by deceased (Ex.PW-8/B);
photographs of the spot (Ex.PW-9/P1); certificate u/s 65B IEA
(Ex.PW-9/A); personal search memo of accused Laldiman @
Munna (Ex.PW-11/A); disclosure statement of accused
Laldiman @ Munna (Ex.PW-11/B); seizure memo of
chunri/piece of saree alongwith sample seal (Ex.PW-11/C);
positive print of two photographs (Ex.PW-11/P1 and
Ex.PW-11/P2); piece of Saree (Ex.PW-11/P3); report dated
31.01.2019 (Ex.PW-12/A) and forwarding letter of FSL
(Ex.PW-12/B).
Statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused :
7. Statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein
he admitted the contents and genuineness of the following
documents:-
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 5/20
ii. Certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.AD-2);
iii. DD No. 35 A dated 01.12.2018 (Ex.AD-3)
iv. MLC bearing no. 11194/18 dated 01.12.2018 (Ex. AD-4);
v. Postmortem report no. 2132/18 dated 02.12.2018 of
deceased Ram Kumar (Ex.AD-5).
8. In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the witnesses i.e.
DO HC Deepak Kumar (sl.no.6), ASI Arun Kumar (sl.no.9), Dr.
Rohit (sl.no.13) and Dr. Neeraj Kumar Garg (sl.no.14) were
dropped from the list of witnesses.
The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
9. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Rajat Suri
claimed himself to be innocent and falsely implicated in the
present case. He did not lead any defence evidence.
Submissions by Ld. Prosecutor:
10. Ld. Prosecutor while relying upon the oral and
documentary evidence on the record argued that the prosecution
has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. He argued that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses have brought home the charges against the
accused. He further relied upon the suicide note left by the
deceased.
Submissions by Ld. Counsel for accused:
11. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused argued that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 6/20
accused beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that even the
allegations of prosecution are believed in toto, still the accused
cannot be punished for the offence under section 306 IPC. He
further contended that there is no abetment on the part of the
accused and each and every case of the suicide by someone
cannot qualify as offence under section 306 IPC. Lastly, he
contended that the accused deserves to be acquitted in this case.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Prosecutor
and the Ld. Counsel of the accused.
Analysis:
13. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on
preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the
expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?
14. For our good fortune, the said expression has been defined
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments. In the
judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S.
Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a
criminal trial in the following terms:
“11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free
to give flight to one’s imagination or fantasy. Crime is an
event in real life and is the product of an interplay between
different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about
the guilt of the accused charged with commission of a
crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick
of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 7/20
Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon
its own facts. The court must bear in mind that “human
nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin
stories out of strong suspicions.” Though an offence may be
gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can
be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises
and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish
the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion
alone. “The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts
and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence.” In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter
the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of
assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that
the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting
manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime
induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial
scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of
Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR 1973 SC
2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of
West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta &
Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1957 SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
“Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be
true; but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is
inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this
distance must be covered by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be
convicted.”
15. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another
Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court explained the term Beyond Reasonable Doubt and
observed as under:
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt
must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and
thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made
sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty
escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not
doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v.
Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1)
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 8/20
RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet
any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC
840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not
an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair
doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow
out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly,
it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws
inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is
argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent
from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed
to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not
a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.)
(AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place of
judicial evaluation. “A judge does not preside over a
criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is
punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does
not escape. Both are public duties.” (Per Viscount Simon in
Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC)
315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC
1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free
from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any
favourite other than truth.
16. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for the abetment of
suicide. It reads as under: –
“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.”
17. Section 107 defines as to when someone can be said to
have committed abetment of a thing. It reads as under: –
“A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
(First)– Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)– Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly)– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 9/20
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.– Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
18. To understand the law on the subject of the abetment to
commit suicide one can take the guidance from a recent judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas
vs The State Of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 322. The relevant
observations are reproduced here as under: –
“15. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence in
India. Section 309 IPC says that whoever attempts to
commit suicide and does any act towards such act, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine or with both. However, once
suicide is carried out, the offence is complete. Considering
the nature of the offence, obviously such a person would be
beyond the reach of the law. Therefore, question of
penalising him would not arise but whoever abets the
commission of such suicide would be penalised
under Section 306 IPC. Punishment prescribed
under Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 10 years and
shall also be liable to fine. What Section 306 IPC says is
that if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the
commission of such suicide shall be punished as above.
16. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 IPC is
‘abets’. ‘Abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As
per Section 107 IPC, a person would be abetting the doing
of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if
he encourages with one or more person or persons in any
conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by
any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. There are
two explanations to Section 107. As per Explanation 1,
even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or
concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound
to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to
cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing. Explanation 2 clarifies that whoever
does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an
act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act,
is said to aid the doing of that act.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 10/20
17. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification
of Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 IPC says is that
whenever any person is absent but was present when the
act or offence for which he would be punishable in
consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be
deemed to have committed such an act or offence and
would be liable to be punished as an abettor.
18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh1, this Court
held that to ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite
or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or that the words or act should
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Where the accused by his act or omission or
by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that
the deceased is left with no other option except to commit
suicide, then ‘instigation’ may be inferred. A word uttered
in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
‘instigation’.
19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh Kumar
Chopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2 observed
that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates
another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing
of an act by the (2001) 9 SCC 618 (2009) 16 SCC
605 other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This Court
summed up the constituents of ‘abetment’ as under:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may
even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful
omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward
more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in
the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary
concomitant of instigation.
20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West
Bengal3 is a case where this Court held that in a case of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect act(s) 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
deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC would not be (2010) 1 SCC
707 sustainable. Similar view has been expressed by this
Court in case of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana4.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 11/20
21. After considering the provisions of Sections
306 and 107 of IPC, this Court in Rajesh versus State of
Haryana5 held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there
being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide.
22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence.
23. This Court in Amudha versus State6 held that there has
to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused
proximate to the date on which the deceased
committed (2019) 17 SCC 301 (2020) 15 SCC 359 2024
INSC 244 suicide. The act attributed should not only be
proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such
a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to
take the drastic step of committing suicide.
24. Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi
versus State of Karnataka7, this Court observed that
discord and differences in domestic life are quite common
in society. Commission of suicide largely depends upon the
mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty
intention on the part of the accused is established, it is
ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence
under Section 306 IPC.
25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra8 is a case where
this Court after analysing various decisions on the point
summed up the legal position in the following manner:
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has
been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it
is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by
the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a
clear mens rea to abet the (2024) SCC Online SC
3541 2024 INSC 1020 commission of suicide and shuld put
the victim in such a position that he/she would have no
other option but to commit suicide.
25.1. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred to its
earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus
State of M.P.9 and held that in a given case, even a time
gap of 48 hours between using of abusive language by theState Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 12/20
accused and the commission of suicide would not amount
to a proximate act.
19. In view of the aforementioned position of law, let us revisit
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to ascertain if the
prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused
or not.
20. One of the most crucial pieces of evidence relied upon by
the prosecution is the suicide note in the handwriting of the
accused. Apart from the same it also relies upon the diary of the
deceased Ex PW1/B. The suicide note and the diary were sent to
the CFSL for comparison if both the writings in the same belong
to the same person or not. PW 12 Sh. Vijender Singh appeared on
behalf of Sh. Virender Singh who examined them in the CFSL.
He proved the report of Sh. Virender Singh as Ex PW12/A.
21. PW12 deposed that Sh. Virender Singh examined the
suicide note Ex PW7/B and the diary Ex PW7/A and after
examination of the same Sh. Virender Singh had given his
opinion that handwriting in the suicide note and the diary
belonged to the deceased as there was common authorship in
both the handwritings contained in both the documents.
22. Thus, the report Ex PW12/A proves that both the
handwriting contained in the suicide note and the diary belonged
to the same person. The question which remains to be decided is
that whether the prosecution has proved the handwriting in
suicide note and the diary to be that of the deceased?
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 13/20
23. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the handwriting in suicide note pertained to
the deceased. In this regard the testimony of PW1 Smt. Renu, the
wife of the deceased has to be discussed.
24. PW1Smt. Renu is the complainant in this case and on her
statement only the present FIR was registered. In her statement
given to the police she raised allegations against the accused and
the discharged accused about the harassment caused to her late
husband due to which he had to commit suicide. However, his
testimony reveals that she did not support the prosecution case
and in view whereof it can be said the prosecution has failed to
prove that the alleged suicide note was not in the handwriting of
the deceased.
25. PW1 deposed that she had her husband signing and writing
as he used to write a diary. She voluntarily stated that he used to
keep the diary with him and did not keep the said diary at home.
When the diary was shown to her she identified the diary as
belonging to her husband but she denied the handwriting to be
that of her husband. She also failed to identify the handwriting in
the suicide note to be that of her husband as well. She further
denied that the diary and the suicide note were recovered by the
police in her presence. Though she is the witness of the recovery
thereto. She deposed that she was sitting outside the house and
the police informed her after the recovery of the suicide note and
the diary. However, she identified signatures of her husband on
different pages of the diary.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 14/20
26. She was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor as she did not
support the prosecution case. In her cross examination, she has
stated that she has not seen the police seizing the mobile phone
Ex. MO-1 and suicide note Mark B as she was sitting outside and
she had not seen the police seizing the said articles, however, the
police informed her about the recovery later on. She denied the
suggestion that the same were recovered in her presence by the
police while searching the dead body of her husband. She was
shown diary Ex. PW1/B upon which she identified the signatures
of her husband. She denied that she identified the handwriting of
her husband on suicide note Mark B and further stated that same
was maintained by her husband while doing his hisab kitab and
diary belongs to her husband. She further stated that diary Ex.
PW1/B was seized by the police from her house but she denied
that signatures of her husband was not appearing ont he
document Mark B. She further stated that she had never seen
Kale Ji and cannot identify the said person. She denied that she
told the IO that some prior to some days of the incident the
aforesaid house owner Rajat came at her house and said to her
husband to police/ghisai of floor. She also stated that her
husband informed her that all the work at the house of Kale Ji
had been completed and all the articles were brought by him
from the house of Kale Ji. She denied the suggestion that she
stated to the IO that after hte polishing work, accused Rajat @
kale Ji did not return the aforesaid machine and stated that
“Kaam pasand nehi hai ya farsh shishe ki tarah chmako, nehi to
mchine wapas nehi milegi”. She was confronted with the portion
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 15/20
of her statement. She denied the suggestion that in the morning
of 18th November, accused Rajat was one of the two persons who
was calling her husband from the gali. She did nto identify the
accused in the Court and despite the suggestion of Ld. Prosecutor
she denied that Rajat was the same person who mad eexhortion
on 18th November.
27. She was cross examined by ld. Counsel for the accused.
She stated that she did not see her husband writing or signing.
She stated that her husband had never shared anything regarding
his work with any person namely Rajat or person namely Kale.
She further stated that she had no personal knowledge and no
information about her husband regarding the Ghisai Machine of
Kallu or it being used at any place. She further stated that police
did not recover any diary, pen or pencil from her home on
01.12.2018.
28. In the re-examination, regarding the difference between
her two statements viz., at one point she stated that she saw her
husband signing and writing, but in cross examination she denied
the same and in earlier examination she stated that she never seen
her husband signing and writing.
29. PW2 Anil Kumar was Jija of deceased. He did not support
the case of the prosecution. He was cross examined by Ld.
Prosecutor, however, during cross examination by Ld.
Prosecutor, he did not support the prosecution case. He denied
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 16/20
that he had done painting work in the house of accused Rajat
Suri. He also did not identify the accused Rajat Suri in the Court.
30. PW3 Arun is Sala of deceased Ram Kumar. He also did
not support the prosecution case and despite being cross
examined by Ld. Prosecutor, nothing favourable to the
prosecution could come on record. He denied that deceased had
taken a contract for work in Uttam Nagar in which he was facing
some problems or that he had already taken Rs.7,000/- from him
and at that time deceased told him about Rajat and Contractor
Munna who had kept his grinding machine with them and that
accused Rajat Suri was pressurizing him to complete the work
without paying money. He was duly confronted by Ld.
Prosecutor with his statement.
31. PW4 Smt. Rinku is the wife of the brother of wife of the
deceased. She also did not support the prosecution case. She
was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor, but nothing favourable to
the prosecution has come on record.
32. PW5 Raj Kumar also did not support the prosecution case.
He denied that in his presence, wife of the deceased Smt. Renu
handed over one diary and told the police that same contained the
handwriting of deceased Ram Kumar and he also saw one diary
and confirmed the same belongs to her husband and was in his
handwriting. He was confronted with the relevant portion of his
statement. When the diary was put up to the witness, he could
not say that the diary belongs to deceased.
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 17/20
33. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution
first and foremost was under the obligation to prove that the
suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. The
prosecution was also required to prove that the admitted
handwriting i.e. the diary allegedly recovered from the house of
the deceased was in his handwriting. However, a careful perusal
of the testimony of PW1 would reveal that prosecution has failed
to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. PW1/Smt. Renu is
the wife of the deceased. She denied that the suicide note was in
the handwriting of her husband. She also denied that police
recovered any diary from her house on the date of the incident.
Although, in her examination in chief, she admitted that the diary
belongs to her husband, but she did not identify the handwriting
in the diary to be that of her husband. In her cross examination,
she identified the signatures in the diary of her husband.
However, when she was cross examined by the accused, she
stated that she had never seen her husband signing or writing.
34. It is settled law that the testimony of a witness has to be
seen as a whole and the law does not permit to separate few
sentences from the testimony to draw a conclusion thereof. If the
witness is wholly reliable, there is no difficulty for the court to
accept the testimony. If the witness is wholly unreliable, there is
no difficulty for the court either to reject the testimony.
However, when the witness is neither wholly reliable nor
unreliable, the problem arises. It is also settled law that the
endeavour of the court should be to separate the chaff from the
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 18/20
grain and to come to the conclusion if the witness can be relied
upon.
35. This court is of the opinon that the testimony of the
witness PW1/Renu, if considered as a whole, does not inspire any
confidence as she has consistently changed her version at the
different stages of her testimony. She did not stick to one version
and, therefore, it would be extremely unsafe to rely on her
testimony to bring home the guilt of the accused. The other
witnesses examined by the prosecution who are the relatives of
PW1 and deceased, also failed to support the prosecution case
and despite their cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, nothing
favourable to the prosecution could come on the record.
36. Even otherwise, a careful perusal of the suicide note
allegedly in the handwriting of the deceased, if accepted, also
does not make out a case of instigation on the part of the accused
in the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The suicide
note revealed that the deceased was engaged by the accused to
do some work at his house and there were some issues regarding
the payment and accused kept the ghisai machine with him and
also demanded money from the deceased. It is settled law that to
bind the accused for the abetment to commit suicide by anyone, it
is not necessary that the actual words should be used or the words
or act should necessarily be suggestive of the consequences, but
whent he accused by his act or omission or by his continuous
course of conduct creates a situation that the decxeased is left
with no other option except to commit suicide then the instigation
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 19/20
can be inferred. Moreover, there is no straight jacket formula
about the human conduct. Different human would react
differently to a similar situation. At best the allegations against
the accused are that they did not pay the deceased his wages, kept
the ghisai machine and also demanded money and deducted
money towards the material used by the deceased. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that by the aforesaid conduct of the
accused, though, was not benevolant towards the deceased, but
the aforesaid actions or conduct of the accused cannot be taken as
instigation. At this stage, the court remind itself that the court
has already held in the preceding paragraphs that the prosecution
has failed to prove the suicide note to be in the handwriting of the
deceased.
37. In conclusion, it is held that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charge under section 306 IPC against the
accused. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted from the offence
under section 306 IPC. Digitally
HEM signed by
HEM RAJ
Date:
RAJ 2025.07.19
17:04:58
Pronounced in the open +0530
Court on 19-07-2025 (Hem Raj)
Addl. Sessions Judge -08(West),
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi, Now presiding
as Judge Family Court, North West,
Rohini,Delhi
State Vs Rajat Suri & Anr SC No.96/2019 FIR No. 629/2018 20/20