Delhi District Court
State vs Raja Singh And Ors on 19 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
DLSH01-004366-2020
SC No. 142/2020
FIR No. 601/2013
PS Jagat Puri
U/s 306/34 IPC
STATE
Vs.
1. RAJA SINGH,
S/o Late Sh. Harbhajan Singh,
R/o H.No. 274, Gagan Vihar, Delhi.
2. YATINDER KUMAR SHARMA,
S/o Late Sh. B L Sharma,
R/o H.No. Flat No. 101, Rise Forest Floor,
Street No. 3 Greater Noida, West, UP.
........ Accused Persons
Date of Institution of case 27.08.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 06.05.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 19.05.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on receipt of DD No.
36A dated 16.12.2013, IO ASI Sahab Singh reached the spot at
H.No. 155, Gali No. 6, South Anarkali, Delhi where he met
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 1 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:47:18 +0530
complainant Rahul Sabharwal, who alleged that his father Chand
Kishor had committed suicide by hanging. Crime Team was
called and photographs were taken and dead body was sent to
mortuary and on 17.12.2013, inquest papers were prepared and
his PM was conducted and complainant Rahul produced the
suicide note and the rope used in hanging, which was seized by
the IO.
2. Complainant alleged that he was the only son of
deceased and on 16.12.2013 at 10.30 AM, he had gone to his job
at Delhi and at about 6.30 PM, his cousin Vaibhav called him on
phone and told him to return home. He again re-dialed Vaibhav
and asked as to what happened, then he stated that his father
Chand Kishor had committed suicide by hanging. He came back
home and saw that his father was lying dead on bed and his uncle
(chacha) Hargovind told that his father had hanged himself from
the fan. He called 100 number and police sent the dead body to
the mortuary and on 17.12.2013 in the morning, he found a
suicide note of 3 pages from the kurta of his father, which was
hand written by him. He went to PS with his uncle Hargovind,
mother and cousin Sunny and handed over the said suicide note.
His father was doing the work of property dealer and as per the
suicide note, his father’s known persons, Rinku, Raja Singh and
Sharma had executed a property collaboration agreement and
they had usurped the money of his father, which was demanded
by his father and they along with Ladi Sardar, financer used to
threaten his father that they would make his family disappear and
due to same, his father committed suicide.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 2 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:47:24 +0530
3. On the complaint of complainant, FIR No. 601/2013,
dt. 19.12.2013 in PS Jagat Puri u/s 306/34 IPC was registered.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused
Raja Singh, Yatinder Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kapoor @
Rinku u/s 306/34 IPC and after filing the charge-sheet,
cognizance of offences was taken against the accused persons.
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 306 r/w 109
IPC was framed against accused Raja Singh, Yatinder Kumar
Sharma and Sandeep Kapoor @ Rinku on 12.03.2025. Accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Sandeep
Kapoor @ Rinku had expired during trial and case against him
abated on 03.02.2026.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
5. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC/330
BNSS was conducted on 03.02.2026. Accused Raja Singh and
Yatinder Kumar Sharma admitted the following documents:
1. FIR No. 601/2013, PS Jagat Puri, Ex.PA1.
2. Certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding FIR, Ex.PA2.
3. PMR No. 2181/13 dt. 17.12.2013 prepared by Dr.
Arun Kumar, Aruna Asif Ali Hospital, Delhi, Ex.PA3.
In view of the above-said admission, the requirement
of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
(a) HC Vinod Kumar (mentioned at Sl. No. 13 in the
list of witnesses).
(b) Dr. Anil Kumar (mentioned at Sl. No. 5 in the
list of witnesses)
(c) Ct. Rahul (mentioned at Sl. No. 12 in the
list of witnesses)State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 3 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution examined twelve (12) witnesses in its
favour to prove the case.
7. PW1 Parveen Sabbarwal deposed that she along with
her son Rahul Sabbarwal and late husband used to reside at
H.No. 155, Gali No. 6, South Anarkali, Jagat Puri, Delhi. Her
husband was a property dealer/builder and on 16.12.2013, at
about 6 PM, she was sleeping on the first floor and her husband
was sleeping on the ground floor of her abovesaid house. She got
downstairs and saw that her husband was hanging with rope with
the ceiling fan of the room. Her relatives i.e. brother of her
husband and other neighbours brought down her husband from
the ceiling fan. Someone informed her son Rahul, who reached
the house and called the police. Police official took the dead body
of her husband for postmortem.
8. PW1 further deposed that on 17.12.2013, one suicide
note, written by her husband, was found from his kurta, which
was lying in the abovesaid room. After reading it, she came to
know that her husband had made a property collaboration
agreement with accused Raja Singh, Sandeep Kapoor @ Rinku
and Yatinder Kumar Sharma and her husband had committed
suicide due to ill treatment/misbehaviour by accused persons.
She correctly identified the signature and handwriting of her
husband Chand Kishor on the suicide note, Ex.P1. PW1 also
identified the rope, Ex.P2, seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A,
which was used by her husband for committing suicide. She also
correctly identified the handwriting and signature of her husband
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 4 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
Chand Kishor on collaboration agreement, Ex.PW2/D, car
delivery receipt, Ex.PW2/E, two cheques i.e. one of Rs. 20,000/-
and other blank cheque (but signed), Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G
and also in rough notes (in which he used to note down his
accounts/transactions), Ex.PW2/H1 to Ex.PW2/H9, written by
her husband.
9. PW2 Rahul Sabbarwal deposed that in the year 2013,
he was doing his articleship/ job in Delhi. On 16.12.2013, at
about 10-11 AM, he left his aforesaid house for his job. At about
6-7 PM, he received a phone call from his cousin Vaibhav, who
disclosed that his father had committed suicide and requested
him to reach home immediately. He reached his abovesaid house
in a room situated at the ground floor and found that dead body
of his father was lying on the bed. His mother Parveen and uncle
Hargovind were also present there. 100 number call was made
and police official reached at their aforesaid house. The dead
body of his father was taken to the mortuary. On the next day i.e.
17.12.2013, one suicide note (running into three pages), written
by his father, was found from the kurta belonging to his father,
which was lying in the abovesaid room at ground floor.
Thereafter, he along with his family members i.e. mother, uncle
Hargovind and cousin Sunny took the suicide note to the PS
Jagatpuri and showed it to the police official and the same was
seized along with the rope, used to commit suicide vide memos
Ex. PW2/A.
10. PW2 identified the dead body of his father, vide
identification memo Ex. PW2/B. After postmortem, the dead
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 5 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 15:47:41
Date: 2026.05.20
+0530
body of his father was handed over to him vide handing over
memo, Ex. PW2/C. PW2 correctly identified the handwriting and
signature of his father Chand Kishore on the suicide note, Ex. P1.
PW2 also identified the said rope, Ex.P2. During investigation,
he handed over some documents i.e. collaboration agreement, car
delivery receipt, some blank cheque (but signed), rough notes (in
which he used to note down his accounts/transactions), which
were written by his father to the IO, for comparing with the
writing in the suicide note.
11. PW2 correctly identified the signature and
handwriting of his father Chand Kishor on collaboration
agreement, Ex.PW2/D, car delivery receipt, Ex.PW2/E, two
blank cheques (but signed), Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G and also
in rough notes (in which he used to note down his
accounts/transactions), Ex.PW2/H1 to Ex.PW2/H9, which were
written by his father. After reading the above said suicide note,
he came to know that his father had made a collaboration
agreement with accused Raja Singh and Yatender Sharma in
which his father had to give Rs. 1.1 Cr. to them and as per the
agreement, his father had to build four floors on the said property
i.e. A-66 in Chander Nagar Area, Delhi and out of four floors,
two floors were to be kept by his father.
12. PW2 further deposed that in his complaint dt.
19.12.2013, Ex.PW2/I, he had stated that he made the said
complaint after going through the suicide note, Ex.P1 and he had
disclosed to the police that his father committed suicide because
accused Raja Singh and Yatinder Kumar Sharma had fraudulently
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 6 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:47:46
+0530
obtained his father’s signatures on some blank papers and made
him “murga”, beaten him and threatened to kill his family
(kyunki accused Raja Singh, Yatender Sharma and Sandeep
Kapoor ne dhoka dhadi se kuch blank papers sign kara liye the,
uske pitaji ko un sab logo ne murga banaya tha, maara bhi tha aur
dhamki bhi di thi, tere bibi bachcho ko maar denge aur pata bhi
nahi chalega). IO seized the copy of collaboration agreement
from him vide seizure memo, dt. 04.01.2014, Ex.PW2/J and also
seized above said rough notes (running into 9 pages) from him
vide seizure memo, dt. 20.05.2014, Ex.PW2/K.
13. PW3 Darshan Lal deposed that he was having
business of property dealer at his residence at 37A, Gali No. 11,
Indra Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi. Satender Sharma had
purchased a flat and PW3 had witnessed the registered sale deed
executed between accused Raja Singh, Yatender Kumar Sharma
and Satender Sharma, Ex.PW2/DX2 and his photographs at point
X. He had received commission of Rs. 10,000-15,000/- in the
said deal. PW3 stated that statement, Ex.PW3/A belongs to him.
14. PW4 Hargovind Sabharwal deposed that deceased
Chand Kishore was his elder brother. On 16.12.2013, at about
05:00 pm, he was present at his house, situated adjoining to the
house of his brother Chand Kishore. PW4 heard noise of his
bhabhi Parveen Kumari. She was crying when he reached at his
brother’s house at ground floor and saw that his bhabhi was
trying to get down his brother Chand Kishore, who was hanging
from the ceiling fan with a rope. He along with his bhabhi and 1-
2 other persons got down his brother Chand Kishore. TheyState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 7 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 15:47:51
Date: 2026.05.20
+0530
checked Chand Kishore, but there was no sign of life in his body.
He called Rahul (son of Chand Kishore) on phone and he came
and called police. Police official came and dead body of his
brother was taken to mortuary. On the next day, the postmortem
of his deceased brother was done and he identified the dead body
of his brother vide identification statement, Ex.PW4/A. Dead
body was handed over vide handing over memo, Ex.PW2/C. His
cremation was done.
15. PW4 further deposed that after cremation, his nephew
Rahul Sabbarwal called and informed him that one letter was
found in the kurta of Chand Kishore. He stated to him that they
should hand over the same to the police. Thereafter, he along
with Rahul went to PS and handed over said letter and documents
(articles), seized vide memo, Ex.PW2/A. PW4 correctly
identified the signature and handwriting of Chand Kishore in
letter (suicide note) Ex.P1 and rope, Ex.P2, which was used by
his brother for committing suicide and seized during
investigation. Thereafter, they returned to their house.
16. PW4 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl.
PP for the state that after reading the above said letter, he came to
know that his brother Chand Kishore committed suicide due to
harassment and misbehaviour of accused persons and on
23.12.2013, he and his nephew Rahul handed over one seller
delivery receipt, blank cheque with his brother’s signature and
plain handwriting paper to the police, which were seized vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW4/C. PW4 correctly identified the signature
and handwriting of his brother Chand Kishore on car delivery
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 8 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:47:56
+0530
receipt, Ex.PW2/E, one blank cheque, Ex.PW2/G, rough notes
(in which he used to note down his accounts/transactions),
Ex.PW2/H1 to Ex.PW2/H9 and also on copy of collaboration
agreement, Ex.PW2/D.
17. PW5 Naresh Kumar Sethi deposed that he used to do
the business of property dealing in the name of Asiad property,
Jagat Puri Main Road, Delhi. Deceased Chand Kishore used to
visit his aforesaid office for sale of his flats.
18. PW6 Alok Kumar Mehta deposed that he was
working as Handwriting Expert at Document Division of FSL,
Rohini since 1996. He had vast experience of more than 29 years
and had given opinions regarding handwriting and signatures in
more than 5000 cases. On 21.01.2014 and 23.05.2014,
questioned documents i.e. suicide note running into three pages
(front and back) and admitted documents i.e. account opening
form, electricity bill, TATA Indicom bill, copy of FIR, original
cheques, delivery receipts, collaboration agreement, pages of
diary and other documents were marked as Mark Q1 to Q9 and
admitted documents were marked as Mark A1 to A31. After
thorough examination with scientific instrument such as stereo
microscope etc., he came to the following conclusion :-
1. “The person who wrote red enclosed standards signatures stamped &
marked A1 to A14 also wrote the red enclosed questioned signatures
similarly stamped & marked Q7 to Q9 …….”
2. “……the possibility of red enclosed questioned writing marked Q1 to Q6
and the standard writings marked A15 to A31 written by one & the same
person cannot be ruled out”.
3. “When the documents marked Q1 to Q9 examined with the scientific
instruments under different lighting conditions, the tint of ink of red
enclosed questioned signatures marked Q7 to Q9 appears similar with the
tint of ink of questioned writings marked Q1 to Q6.” He gave hisState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 9 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 15:48:01
Date: 2026.05.20
+0530
detailed report dated 18.02.2016, Ex. PW6/A.
19. PW7 Ms. Priyanka, Senior Assistant deposed that she
was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Sub Registrar
VIII Office, Geeta Colony, Delhi. She had brought original
record pertaining as follows:
Regn. Book Volume Pages Regn. Date Exhibits.
no. no. no. 9544 1 5513 46-53 16.06.2011 Now Ex.PW7/A (OSR) 146 1 6011 64-70 05.01.2012 Now Ex.PW7/B (OSR) 22841 1 6888 163-171 06.11.2012 Already Ex.PW2/DX2 1836 1 7168 190-196 04.02.2013 Already Ex.PW2/DX3
20. PW8 HC Rama Kant deposed that on 16.12.2013, he
was posted as Constable at PS Jagat Puri. On that day, on
receiving DD No. 36A, he along with IO ASI Sahib Singh
reached at the spot i.e. H.No. 155, Gali no. 6, South Anarkali,
Jagat Puri, Delhi where they came to know that deceased Chand
Kishor had committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan in the
room at ground floor. On the direction of IO, the dead body was
taken to Sabji Mandi, Mortuary, Delhi. The postmortem of dead
body was conducted there. On 17.12.2013, the dead body was
handed over to relative of deceased Chand Kishor. The son of
deceased namely Rahul came at the PS and handed over one
suicide note (3 pages) and one rope, which were seized vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A. IO recorded his statement. PW8
correctly identified the suicide note, Ex.P1 and one white and
blue colour plastic rope, Ex.P2 as being the same rope, which
was produced by Rahul.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 10 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:48:05
+0530
21. PW9 Sh. Pragya Nand Tiwari deposed that he was
working as Manager at Bank of India, Vikas Marg Branch,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. On showing account opening form (running
into 8 pages), Ex.PW9/A, he stated that the above said account
opening form was of customer Chand Kishore and account no.
605310110002284 and the nominee was Praveen Kumari and the
address of the customer/applicant was H. No. 155/156, Ground
Floor, South Anarkali, Gali No. 6, Delhi. Sh. Sunil Kumar
Rakhra was working as Manager, Bank of India, Vikas Marg
Branch, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in January 2014. As per his
knowledge, he had died.
22. PW10 Inspector Rahul Kumar deposed that on
25.06.2017, he was working as SI at PS Jagat Puri. On that day,
further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He
collected the case file from MHC(R). On 05.11.2017, he
collected the final result from FSL Rohini regarding the question
documents and placed it on file. On 01.06.2018, he got
transferred from PS Jagat Puri and he handed over the case file to
MHC(R).
23. PW11 Inspector Kiran pal deposed that on
16.10.2018, he was posted as SI at PS Jagat Puri, Delhi. On that
day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him
and he collected the case file from MHC(R). During
investigation, after going through the case file, it was found that
as per photocopy of agreement, Ex.PW2/D, accused Raja Singh
and Yatinder Kumar Sharma received Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from
deceased Chand Kishore. After completion of investigation, he
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 11 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:48:10 +0530
prepared the charge-sheet u/s 306/34 IPC against accused Raja
Singh, Yatender Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kapoor @ Rinku.
24. PW12 SI Sahib Singh deposed that on 16.12.2013, he
received information/DD regarding suicide. He along with staff
reached at South Anarkali, Jagat Puri where he found one person
was hanging from the ceiling fan. He called the crime team at the
spot and got inspected the spot. He conducted the search of
hanged person Chand Kishore, but no suicide note could be
found. The son and wife of deceased were also present there and
body was sent to Sabji Mandi Mortuary. He made inquiries from
the neighbours of deceased. The above said DD entry was kept
pending. The dead body of deceased Chand Kishore was handed
over to the son of deceased vide handing over memo, Ex.PW2/C.
PW12 recorded the identification statement of Rahul and
Hargovind, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/A respectively.
25. PW12 further deposed that after few days, son of
deceased Rahul Sabbarwal came to PS and handed over a suicide
note, Ex.P1 to him and stated that the same was recovered from
the pant of deceased. PW12 correctly identify suicide note, which
was handed over by Rahul Sabbarwal to him. He seized the
suicide note vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A. On 19.12.2013, he
recorded the statement of complainant Rahul Sabbarwal,
Ex.PW2/I and prepared the rukka, Ex.PW12/A and got registered
the FIR. He prepared the site plan, Ex.PW12/B.
26. PW12 further deposed that he seized the suicide note
and ligature material i.e. rope vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A. He
collected the cheque, expense/business transaction details,State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 12 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
handwriting of deceased on pages and seized the same vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW4/C. PW12 sent the above said documents
along with suicide note to FSL for matching the handwriting and
signature of deceased. He recorded statements of accused Raja
Singh, Satender Kumar and Rinku and one another accused.
27. PW12 further deposed that there was a collaboration
agreement between accused Raja Singh, Yatender Kumar Sharma
and Rinku and deceased Chand Kishore regarding the
construction of building. He collected the photocopy of
collaboration agreement, Ex.PW2/D and seized the same vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW2/J. On 30.11.2015, he got retired from the
service and handed over the case file to MHC(R). PW12 could
not identify any accused.
28. PW12 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. APP
that DD number was 36A dt. 16.12.2013 and the house number
of the spot was 155 and the postmortem was conducted on
17.12.2013 and on 19.12.2013, complainant Rahul himself came
at PS and he recorded his statement. Above said suicide note and
rope were produced together by Rahul and he seized the same on
17.12.2013. The blank cheques, delivery receipt and plain
handwriting paper were produced by Hargovind on 23.12.2013
and he seized the same and the above said collaboration
agreement was produced by Rahul Sabbarwal and seized by him
on 04.01.2014. On 03.01.2014, Bank Manager Sunil Kumar
Rakhra, Bank of India, Vikas Marg Branch, Delhi, produced
account opening form of deceased Chand Kishore to him and he
seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/DX.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 13 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
Date:
15:48:22 +0530
29. PW12 also admitted in the cross-examination of Ld.
APP that on 20.05.2014, son of deceased produced 9 papers of a
diary written by deceased Chand Kishore and seized by him vide
memo, Ex.PW2/K. On 12.08.2014, he received photocopy of sale
deeds Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW2/DX2 and Ex.PW2/DX3
from the Sub-Registrar Office-VIII, Delhi and he interrogated the
accused Sandeep Kapoor @ Rinku, who disclosed that he got
executed the collaboration agreement between Chand Kishore
and accused Raja Singh and Yatender Kumar Sharma. Sandeep
Kapoor @ Rinku was the commission agent on behalf of accused
Raja Singh and Yatender Kumar Sharma and he received Rs.
30,000/- from them. PW12 also interrogated accused Raja Singh,
who disclosed that property bearing no. A66, Indira Park, Delhi
was registered in his name and that of Yatender Kumar Sharma
and collaboration agreement was between them and deceased
Chand Kishore to build the same. Accused Raja Singh also
disclosed that as per collaboration agreement, first and second
floor would have come into the share of Chand Kishore, but he
transferred the said floors to Satender Sharma in November 2012
and January 2013 and he was witness in those registries and
similar disclosure was made in the interrogation of Yatinder
Kumar Sharma.
30. PW12 also admitted in the cross-examination of Ld.
APP that he also interrogated Satender Sharma regarding the said
property i.e. A-66, Indira Park, Delhi, who disclosed that he
purchased first and second floors of the said property from
accused Raja Singh and Yatender in November 2012 and January
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 14 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:48:26 +0530
2013. PW12 correctly identified the cheques Ex.PW2/F and
Ex.PW2/G, delivery receipt Ex.PW2/D, document Ex.PW2/H1 to
Ex.PW2/H9 as being the same documents, which were seized by
him. PW12 also correctly identified account opening form,
Ex.PW9/A as the same, which was produced by Bank Manager
Sunil. PW12 correctly identified the copy of collaboration
agreement, Ex.PW2/D as the one, which was produced by Rahul
Sabbarwal and seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/J. PW12 also
identified one rope, Ex.P2, which was produced by Rahul and
seized by him, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A. PW12 also
admitted that he could not state these facts in his examination-in-
chief due to loss of memory, eye problem, old age and lapse of
13 years.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 351 BNSS/313 CR.P.C.
31. Statements of accused Raja Singh and Yatinder
Kumar Sharma were recorded u/s 351 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. on
09.04.2026 and they denied the incriminating evidence put to
them and they stated that all the witnesses are interested
witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials
in the present case and they are innocent.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSELS FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
32. It is argued by Ld. Counsels for accused persons that
they have been falsely implicated by the police and accused
persons have not abetted the deceased Chand Kishor to commit
suicide and there was no collaboration agreement made amongst
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 15 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:48:30 +0530
accused persons and deceased and the same was not proved as
per law as only photocopy was exhibited without accounting for
the originals and even IO did not try to collect the original nor
the original was produced by any witness. Deceased Chand
Kishor committed suicide due to the reason that his son Rahul
Sabharwal was not able to clear his CA examination and he was
also not getting married and he has referred his son in the alleged
suicide note. The said suicide note was not written by deceased,
rather it was manipulated by his son later on to falsely implicate
the accused persons to extort money from them as deceased
Chand Kishor had not filed any prior complaint to the police or
any case in any court against the accused persons for usurping his
money. The family members had not known the reason of suicide
till the alleged suicide note came into picture. The same was not
written in the handwriting of Chand Kishor and his son has given
the extracts of diary in which entries and notes were made by
himself and not deceased and on the basis of the same, the FSL
opinion was wrongly given thereby matching the handwriting on
suicide note, which the admitted signatures on Account Opening
Form, Delivery Receipts etc. Also, the report of handwriting
expert is only corroborative and it is not a perfect signs and there
is no other evidence for the corroboration of said FSL report.
33. There was no mens rea on part of accused brought or
proved on record. Deceased was never the owner of property
mentioned in said collaboration agreement and the rope was
brought in unsealed condition and was not measured and there is
no photo of the spot and there is no specimen of handwriting and
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 16 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:48:35 +0530
signature of PW2 Rahul Sabharwal taken or sent to FSL as he
admitted that he also used to write the notes and there is high
probability that he had written the said suicide note for extorting
money from accused. The other persons named in the suicide
note i.e. Ladi Sardar and Satender Sharma etc., who used to
threaten the deceased, have not been made accused nor they have
been made a witness, which shows that prosecution case was
filed on flimsy ground. The other public witnesses including the
family members and complainant are the hearsay witnesses and
none of the witnesses deposed against accused and the said
suicide note suffers from lot of suspicion as none of its contents
is corroborated by any independent witness, so its contents
cannot be treated as gospel truth of deceased and cannot be relied
upon solely to convict the accused persons.
34. The said suicide note does not show any proximate
action on part of the accused persons to compel the deceased to
commit suicide. There is no independent witness examined qua
the allegations mentioned in the suicide note nor there is any
video/CCTV footage qua any wrong act done by accused persons
which makes the deceased with no alternative except to take his
own life by committing suicide. Mere allegations of harassment
without any positive action does not amount to abetment of
suicide nor there was any live link between the death of deceased
and any act of accused and no presumption u/s 113(A) of IEA is
applicable to accused persons. Even IO has not identified the
accused persons in the court and he has deposed in affirmative to
the leading questions asked by Ld. APP and he did not conduct
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 17 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:48:40 +0530
the investigation properly for which benefit should be given to
the accused persons. DW1 proved the ITRs of deceased during
relevant period, which shows that he had good income and he
could not have died due to financial crunch. Thus, prosecution
failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt.
35. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the
following judgments as under:
1. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal
Appeal No. 742 of 2020.
2. Reena Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2020 DHC 2039.
3. Harbhajan Sandhu Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, 2022, PHHC: 017401.
4. M Mohan Vs. State Tr. Dy. Supdt. Of Police, SLP (Crl.) No. 2550/2010.
5. Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Cri.A @ SLP (Cri)
No. 7554 of 2019.
6. Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 812.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
36. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has
proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt and the complainant Rahul Sabharwal proved his
complaint and the suicide note written by his father in which he
held accused persons responsible for his death as they had
usurped his money and humiliated, harassed and beaten him. The
handwriting expert has also proved his report that the
handwriting/signature in the suicide note were of deceased
Chand Kishor after comparing the same from his admitted
handwriting/signature from Delivery Receipts, Account Opening
Form etc. The Account Opening Form was proved by PW9 and
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 18 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:48:45
+0530
the act of the accused persons was the direct cause due to which
deceased had to commit suicide as they made him having
financial crunch and also urinated on him and there was mens rea
on part of the accused persons and they had fraudulently
prepared false documents. As per Section 47 IEA, the family
members being well conversant with handwriting of deceased
were the best witnesses to prove his handwriting and they have
deposed so and the said suicide note be treated as dying
declaration, which was duly proved and remained unrebutted
during trial. As per collaboration agreement, accused persons had
to give two floors to deceased, but they did not give and they had
taken Rs. 1.1 cr. from deceased and did not return.
37. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
records.
38. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove
its case including PW2/complainant.
39. The charge against accused is u/s 306 r/w 109 IPC.
Section 306 IPC. 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.
The following facts in issues needs to be decided to
decide the present case i.e.-
Quest 1: Whether the deceased Chand Kishor committed suicide?
Ques 2: Whether he left a handwritten suicide note and if, the
same was proved to be in his own handwriting?
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 19 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:48:49 +0530
Ques 3: Whether the allegations made in the suicide note were
sufficient to hold accused guilty u/s 306 IPC for abetting suicide
as deceased was left with no alternative except to commit suicide
and their acts were proximate to the cause of his death?
PUBLIC WITNESSES
40. PW1 is the wife of deceased Chand Kishor, who
deposed that her husband was a property dealer and on
16.12.2013 at 6 PM, her husband was sleeping at ground floor,
while she was sleeping on first floor and she saw that he was
hanging from ceiling fan with rope and her relatives and
neighbours brought him down. PW1 and PW2 (son of
deceased/complainant) deposed that on 17.12.2013, one suicide
note of deceased Chand Kishor was found from his kurta and
from the same, they came to know that one property
collaboration agreement, Ex.PW2/D was made between accused
persons Sandeep Kapoor, Raja Singh and Yatinder Kumar
Sharma and due to their misbehaviour and ill treatment, deceased
Chand Kishor had committed suicide and they identified the
handwriting/signatures of Chand Kishor in said suicide note,
Ex.P1, car delivery receipt, Ex.PW2/E, two cheques of Rs.
20,000/- and blank, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G respectively and
rough notes, Ex.PW2/H1 to Ex.PW2/H9 and also correctly
identified the rope, Ex.P2, which were seized vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW2/A.
41. In her cross-examination, PW1 stated that her
husband was in the business of property dealing since 2002, but
she has no knowledge of his earning and she did not hear any
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 20 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.05.20
noise from ground floor on the date of incident and on her alarm,
her brother-in-law Hargovind came there and in her statement
recorded by the police dated 17.12.2013, Ex.PW1/DX1, she
admitted that she had stated that ‘Isme kisi ka dosh nahi hai’, but
it was later cut with a pen, which shows that she had not levelled
allegations against accused persons initially.
42. PW2 Rahul Sabharwal, complainant, also deposed
that on 16.12.2013, when he was in his office, he received a
phone call from his cousin Vaibhav regarding suicide by his
father, but said Vaibhav has not been examined as witness. PW2
identified dead body of his father vide memo, Ex.PW2/B and
thus, his evidence proved that deceased was his father Chand
Kishor.
43. PW2 also deposed that after reading suicide note, he
came to know that his father Chand Kishor made collaboration
agreement with Raja Singh and Yatinder Sharma in which his
father had to give 1.1 Cr. to them and to build four floors in
property A-66, Chander Nagar, Delhi and two of them had to be
kept by his father. PW2 proved his complaint dated 19.12.2013,
Ex.PW2/I, which is corroborated PW12. PW2 deposed that said
complaint was made by him after going though suicide note,
Ex.P1 as accused persons had got signed some blank papers
fraudulently from his father and they had beaten him, threatened
him and his family and made him ‘Murga’. PW2 also proved the
seizure memos of collaboration agreement and rough notes vide
memos Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K, which is corroborated by
PW12.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 21 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:48:58 +0530
SUICIDE NOTE
44. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are wife
and son of deceased and residing with him at the time of alleged
offence, it is proved that one suicide note, Ex.P1 was recovered
from the kurta of deceased in his house. PW1, PW2 and PW4
have deposed that it was in the handwriting of deceased Chand
Kishor and they also proved handwriting/signature of deceased
Chand Kishor in said suicide note, Ex.P1, car delivery receipt,
Ex.PW2/E, two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- and blank, Ex.PW2/F
and Ex.PW2/G respectively and rough notes, Ex.PW2/H1 to
Ex.PW2/H9 and also correctly identified the rope, Ex.P2, which
were seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A, which is further
corroborated by PW12 IO.
45. PW9 Pragya Nand Tiwari, Manager of Bank of India,
deposed on behalf of Sh. Sunil Kumar Rakhra, who had expired
and proved the Account Opening Form of deceased Chand
Kishor with account no. 605310110002284, dated 11.01.2008,
Ex.PW9/A from the records of deceased available with the bank
and that it was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/DX, which is
corroborated by PW12 IO that PW12 seized the same and PW9
denied that sometimes in Account Opening Form, the person
signing it is different from the person shown in photograph and
name written upon it.
46. PW6 Alok Kumar Mehta Handwriting Expert having
vast experience of 29 years and 5,000 opinions qua handwritings
and signatures, had deposed that he had examined the questioned
documents Marked Q1 to Q9, which are the pages of suicide
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 22 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:49:02 +0530
note, Ex.P1 and the admitted documents Marked A1 to A31 i.e.
bank opening form, Ex.PW9/A (A4 to A8), bills of BSES (A9 to
A10), NCR of PS Krishna Nagar (A11), cheques of deceased,
Ex.PW2/F (A3), seller delivery receipt, PW2/E (A16), one blank
cheque, Ex.PW2/G (A1), handwritten notes, Ex.PW2/H1 (A15) ,
collaboration agreement, Ex.PW2/D (A12 to A14) and extracts
of diary, Ex.PW2/H9 (A17 to A31).
Section 45 IEA. Opinions of Experts.- When the Court
has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as
to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that
point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in
questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant
facts.
Such persons are called experts.
47. PW6 proved his report, Ex.PW6/A and as per which,
similarities were observed in question writings, Mark Q1 to Q6
and standard writings, Mark A15 to A31 and that they were
written by one and same person cannot be ruled out and after
examining the questioned documents, Q1 to Q9 with scientific
instruments under different lighting conditions, the tint of ink of
questioned signatures Q7 to Q9 appear similar with the ink of
writings Mark Q1 to Q6. This report proves that the handwriting
and signature in the suicide note, Ex.P1 matches with
handwriting and signatures on documents signed by deceased as
aforesaid, which are from A1 to A31 and the same is
corroborated by PW1 and PW2, who have identified the
signature and handwriting of deceased in those documents as
well as in the questioned documents. PW6 has given his reasons
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 23 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:06 +0530
in the said report, so his opinion is relevant as his testimony
remained unshaken in his cross-examination.
Section 47 IEA. Opinion as to handwriting, when
relevant.- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by
whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person
acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be
written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a
relevant fact.
48. PW1 and PW2 are family members of deceased, who
were residing with him and seen him writing and as such they
were acquainted with his handwriting and signatures and their
opinion is relevant as per Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act
and further the opinion of PW6 being expert is also relevant as
per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
49. Ld. Counsel for accused persons contended that it was
the PW2, who used to write the diaries of deceased, which is
admitted by him in his cross-examination, but PW2 has denied
the suggestion that he used to make entries in rough register on
behalf of his father as per his directions though in his
examination in chief dated 01.09.2025, he stated that his father
used to write a diary pertaining to account of business, which
used to be written by PW2 at his instructions, but since the
contents of documents, Ex.PW2/H9 matched with the contents of
questioned documents, this contention of Ld. Counsel is not
tenable that said documents could have been written by PW2. It
is also contented that PW1 in her cross-examination stated that
police official told that handwriting of the suicide note was not
being matched, which appears to be a vague answer as it is not
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 24 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:49:11
+0530
stated by her as to from which document. It was not matched and
that police officials are not the experts nor they were the family
members acquainted with the handwriting and signature of
deceased and investigation had just commenced at that time.
Thus, prosecution has been able to prove that suicide note, Ex.P1
was written by deceased Chand Kishor.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
50. The PMR of the deceased Chand Kishor dated
17.12.2013, Ex.PA3 was admitted by the accused persons and as
per the same, there was no antemortem injuries and cause of
death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and it was
a case of prosecution that deceased committed suicide, which is
not disputed by the accused persons. Thus, it is proved that
deceased died by suicide, so the contention of Ld. Counsel for
accused persons that the rope used in crime was brought in
unsealed condition or that PW2 gave different statements that he
was in his office and at home at the time of occurrence, is not
relevant anymore. It proves that deceased had committed suicide.
51. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons
had abetted the suicide of deceased Chand Kishor. From the
perusal of the testimony of PW1, it is apparent that she had no
knowledge of any harassment, insult or humiliation being caused
to deceased by the accused persons as she had categorically
stated that she came to know that her husband committed suicide
due to ill treatment/misbehaviour by accused persons, which
shows that deceased had not revealed any such harassment by the
accused persons to his family members as even PW2 came to
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 25 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:49:15
+0530
know about such facts after the suicide note came to fore.
52. As per the suicide note, Ex.P1, it was alleged that
accused persons had entered into collaboration agreement for
property A-66, Indra Park, Delhi with deceased for Rs. 1.1 Cr.
and two floors were of deceased (I and II) and other two floors
were of accused persons and accused persons had taken away all
his savings and gold, but nothing has come in the investigation
that accused persons had taken all the money and gold of
deceased nor any documents have been produced in this regard
nor any witness has been examined and the family members i.e.
PW1 and PW2 have also not deposed so.
53. It was also alleged that accused persons had
mortgaged one of his said floors to Pandit and took money from
him and he did not get any floor and they had taken cheque from
Pandit, but said Pandit has not been examined by the prosecution
to clarify this fact, which remained doubtful. It was also alleged
that accused persons had put Ladi Sardar behind him, who used
to threaten him by coming to his home to get his flats transferred
in his name or he would be killed, but the said Ladi Sardar was
neither made an accused nor examined as witness and none of the
witnesses including PW1 and PW2 have deposed anything
against Ladi Sardar in their testimony, so even, this fact remains
doubtful. It was also alleged in suicide note that “Sethi Bhaisahab
and Raju Bhaisahab knew everything that how much amount was
to be given or taken by the deceased and they had told deceased
that accused persons were conspiring against him and he had no
money for food and medicine, but said Sethi Bhaisahab was
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 26 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:49:19 +0530
examined as PW5 Naresh Kumar Sethi, who has only stated that
deceased Chand Kishor used to visit his office of property
dealing at Jagatpuri, Main Road, Delhi for sale of his flats, but he
has not deposed about any money transaction of deceased or that
if he had borrowed or lended money to any person and another
person Raju has not been examined by prosecution and thus,
even these allegations have not been corroborated or proved in
any manner. Deceased also alleged that he had not told Sethi
Bhaisahab as to how big fraud was committed with him and he
had done the collaboration at the instance of accused Rinku, who
had introduced him to Yatinder Sharma and Raja Singh for
collaboration and Rinku had assured that the flats would be sold
hand to hand and deceased had given cash of Rs. 10 Lakhs as
earnest money by mortgaging his gold in Muthoot Finance, but
there is no document proved on record pertaining to said
mortgage of gold nor any witness examined in this regard. The
deceased also alleged that accused persons got his signatures on
many papers and they had taken money from Satender Pandit and
told him to give interest on Rs. 10 Lakhs and he said that when
they were taking money why he would pay the interest, they they
had threatened that one of their relatives was DIG in police, who
was residing in Udai Park, Geeta Colony and threatened him and
he had paid Rs. 57 Lakhs as interest for accused Yatinder
Sharma and Raja Singh and when he told them to get floors in his
name, he was given false assurances that party was engaged and
accused persons got one floor transferred in the name of
deceased, but two months, they had changed the papers. Accused
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 27 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:24
+0530
Rinku had denied having the original document and no notice u/s
91 Cr.P.C. was served during investigation to him to produce the
original agreement of collaboration. There is no investigation qua
said DIG or interest paid by deceased nor any such document
was produced.
54. It was also alleged that accused Rinku, Raja Singh
and Yatinder Sharma had urinated and spit on him and made him
Murga, but he has not mentioned any date, place and time of the
same and there is no independent witness of any such occurrence.
Further, deceased stated that Raju Bhaishahb has knowledge of
everything, but no such Raju was examined by prosecution to
throw light on the contents of suicide note to corroborate the
same.
55. The prosecution has relied upon the collaboration
agreement, Ex.PW2/D. As per the same, it was executed between
Raja Singh, Yatinder Kumar Sharma and deceased Chand Kishor
on 16.01.2012 and the accused persons were the owners of
property bearing no. A-66, Indra Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi-51
and they wanted to construct the said building upto 4 floors
including ground floor, which was to be constructed and
developed by deceased with his own cost and expenses till
30.11.2012 and its possession was handed over to him. The
deceased had to keep first and second floor with two car and two
scooter parking on ground floor and accused persons had to keep
UGF and Third Floor with roof rights and passage and deceased
had to pay Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to the accused persons and he had
paid Rs. 10 Lakhs at the time of signing agreement and rest
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 28 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:49:28
+0530
amount was to be paid in two installments of Rs. 45 Lakhs and
Rs. 55 Lakhs and the accused Yatinder Sharma had given the
receiving of receipt of Rs. 1 Crore on different dates in cash, but
it is not clear from whom he received and Revenue Stamp is only
on one transaction and the receipts were duly signed by accused
Yatinder Kumar Sharma, but both the accused persons denied
executing any such collaboration agreement or receipt of said
money and IO had not taken the specimen signature of accused
persons Yatinder Kumar Sharma or Raja Singh to prove their
signatures on the said document or on receipts of money being
received by accused Yatinder.
56. The prosecution has not produced the original of the
said Ex.PW2/D and PW11 in his cross-examination, admitted
that original collaboration agreement could not be found during
investigation and it is settled law that secondary evidence can be
led only when primary is accounted for that it was not available,
lost, destroyed or it is voluminous, but in this case, the said
collaboration agreement is not a registered document, rather it is
a notarized document, but even the said notary has not been
examined to prove the said document nor register of notary was
brought nor the same bears any photograph of the accused
persons or deceased nor any witness to the collaboration
agreement has been examined to prove that it was duly executed
between accused persons and deceased.
Section 63 IEA. Secondary evidence.- Secondary
evidence means and includes-
(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 29 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:49:33
+0530
contained;
(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes
which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared
with such copies;
(3) Copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did
not execute them;
(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some
person who has himself seen it.
Section 65 IEA. Cases in which secondary evidence
relating to documents may be given.- Secondary evidence may
be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in
the following cases:-
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power-
of the person against whom the document is sought to be
proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the
process of the Court, or
of any person legally bound to produce it,
and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such
person does not produce it;
(b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original
have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person
against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the
party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other
reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in
reasonable time;
(d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily
movable;
(e) When the original is a public document within the meaning
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 30 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:38
+0530
of Section 74;
(f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is
permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to
be given in evidence.
(g) When the originals consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court,
and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole
collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of
the contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible.
In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but
no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general
result of the documents by any person who has examined them,
and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
57. In Tharammel Peethambaran and Another Vs. T.
Ushakrishnan and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 128, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
20. The broad parameters summarising the procedure to be
followed for introducing secondary evidence are reiterated and read thus:
20.1 The fundamental principle of the Indian Evidence Act is
that facts have to be established by primary evidence in Jagmail Singh Vs.
Karamjit Singh, (2020) 5 SCC 178 (Para 14) Section 64 mandates that
documents must be proved by primary evidence, which is considered the
“best evidence”. Primary evidence is the rule, while secondary evidence is
an exception admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. A party is
generally required to produce the best evidence available; so long as the
superior evidence (the original) is within a party’s possession or reach, they
cannot introduce inferior proof (secondary evidence) in Smt. J Yashoda Vs.State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 31 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:49:41
+0530
K Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730.
20.2 Before secondary evidence can be admitted, the party
relying on it must lay a factual foundation. This involves two steps: First,
the party must prove that the original document actually existed and was
executed. Secondly, the party must establish valid reasons as to why the
original cannot be furnished in Ibid; Kaliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2013) 10 SCC 758.
20.3 Secondary evidence is inadmissible until the non-
production of the original is accounted for in a manner that brings the case
within the specific exceptions provided in Section 65. In H. Siddiqui (D) By
Lrs. Vs. A. Ramalingam AIR (2011) SC 1492. If the original itself is found
to be inadmissible through failure of the party who files it to prove it to be
valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its
contents in Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Ram (2007) 5 SCC 370.
20.4 Section 65 of the Evidence Act is exhaustive and states the
specific circumstances under which secondary evidence is permissible. To
introduce secondary evidence, a party must satisfy the conditions of one of
the clauses (a) through (g) of Section 65.
Condition for Statutory Clause Type of Secondary Evidence Secondary Allowed Evidence Adversary Possession Section 65(a) Any secondary evidence (after notice).
20.5 Further, admitting a document as secondary evidence does
not automatically prove its contents. The secondary evidence must be
authenticated by foundational evidence showing that the alleged copy is, in
fact, a true copy of the original. For instance, if a party wishes to introduce a
photostat copy, they must explain the circumstances under which the copy
was prepared and who possessed the original at the time the photograph was
taken in Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube and Another (1975) 4 SCC
664; Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, (2010) 9 SCC 712.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 32 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:46
+0530
20.6 Mere admission of a document or making it an exhibit
does not dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance with the
law. The court has an obligation to examine the probative value of the
document and decide the question of admissibility before making an
endorsement on the secondary evidence. If the foundational facts, such as
the loss of the original or the explanation for its non-production, are not
established, the court cannot legally allow the party to adduce secondary
evidence in Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri, (2016) 16 SCC 483.
21. Therefore, the introduction of secondary evidence is a two-
step process, wherein, first, the party must establish the legal right to lead
secondary evidence, and second, they must prove the contents of the
documents through that evidence. The twin requirements are conjunctive.
58. Exhibition of said collaboration agreement during trial
was objected to by Ld. Defence Counsels and they have also
taken the defence that no collaboration agreement was produced
by PW2 Rahul Sabharwal. PW12 IO in his testimony stated that
he collected the photocopy of Ex.PW2/D, but he has not
explained as to why he had not taken the original or what efforts
were made by him to take the original collaboration agreement or
if it was destroyed or lost and thus, the prosecution could not
prove the said collaboration agreement as per law, being only a
photocopy.
59. In the said suicide note, the deceased had stated that
he did not want to die, but he was taking that step in compulsion
and innocence from the face of his son Rahul had gone and he
used to remain sad and he wanted to see his smiling face, but his
son used to remain silent and he could not see him like that. The
contention of Ld. Counsels for accused persons was that
deceased died due to the condition of his son Rahul and that he
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 33 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:51
+0530
was not able to complete his CA and not because of the accused
persons. PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that he passed
his CA final in four attempts in July and he started appearing or
preparing for CA in 2009, which appears to be a valid contention
as no particular reason for sadness of Rahul has been mentioned
in suicide note and PW2 Rahul was not aware of any dealings or
financial crunch of his father prior to his death, which could have
made him sad.
60. Neither of the prosecution witnesses including PW1
and PW2 have brought or proved any document regarding
payment of Rs. 1.1 Cr. by deceased to the accused persons nor
any source of money has been proved. During the cross-
examination of PW2, accused persons put him two registered
sale deeds, Ex.PW2/DX2 dated 05.11.2012 and Ex.PW2/DX3
dated 01.02.2013 of two floors of said property executed by
accused persons Raja Singh and Yatinder Sharma to one Satender
Sharma in which deceased Chand Kishor was the witness and
PW2 has admitted signature and name of his father Chand Kishor
on the same at Point A, which shows that deceased Chand Kishor
had knowledge of those sale deeds to Satender Sharma of the
flats, which allegedly belonged or agreed to be handed over to
deceased, but he did not take any action against the accused
persons nor made any complaint against them, rather he became
witness to the same, so he cannot claim that he was being cheated
by the accused persons. PW11 in his cross-examination also
admitted that during investigation, he did not receive any
information regarding any previous complaint by deceased
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 34 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:49:55
+0530
Chand Kishor against the accused persons and he filed the
charge-sheet on the basis of investigation/FSL result. It is
pertinent to mention that it is the prosecution, which has proved
Ex.PW2/DX2 and Ex.PW2/DX3 by way of examination of PW7
Ms. Priyanka, who had brought the original record from the
office of Sub-Registrar-VIII of these documents, which is
corroborated by PW12, who has received the said documents
from SR-VIII, Office. PW7 also proved documents, Ex.PW7/A,
which is sale deed of said property A-66, Indira Park, Delhi-51,
being purchased by accused persons and one Paramjeet Singh
from one Tara Rani Sharma vide sale deed dated 09.06.2011 and
Ex.PW7/B, which is release deed dated 04.01.2012 vide which
said Paramjeet Singh had released all his rights in the said
property in favour of accused persons and these documents are
further corroborated by PW12, who has received the said
documents also from SR-VIII, Office.
61. PW3 Darshan Lal also deposed that said sale deed,
Ex.PW2/DX2 was witnessed by him, which bears his signature at
Point B and photographs at Point X and he admitted his
statement recorded by police, Ex.PW3/A in which he stated that
he got this sale deed executed in favour of Satender Sharma for
Rs. 23,10,000/- and in his cross-examination, PW3 denied that he
introduced Chand Kishor to Satender Sharma, rather he stated
that he did not know Chand Kishor and this version further
creates doubt on the suicide note.
62. PW4 Hargovind Sabharwal also proved the suicide of
deceased Chand Kishor at his house on 16.12.2013 and identified
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 35 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
his dead body vide statement, Ex.PW4/A, but the death and
suicide is not disputed. He handed over the suicide note of
deceased Chand Kishor, Ex.P1 found by his nephew PW2 Rahul
to the police, which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/A
and correctly identified rope, Ex.P2. However, PW4, who is real
brother of deceased, has not fully supported the case of
prosecution and he was put leading questions by Ld. APP
wherein he denied that after reading the suicide note, he came to
know that his brother Chand Kishor, who was property dealer
had given large amount to accused persons on account of the
collaboration agreement for building a property and they used to
demand more money from him and he stated so despite being
confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW4/B and this
version further creates doubt on the contents of suicide note that
deceased had paid said amount of Rs. 1.1 Cr. to the accused
persons or he had mortgaged his gold and fortifies the defence of
accused persons that no such amount was paid by deceased to
accused persons.
63. In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that he handed
over suicide note on 17.12.2013 and till 19.12.2013, he did not
ask police reason for not registering FIR and he did not know the
names of accused persons after the incident and no kurta was
handed over to police from which suicide note was found and he
denied that there was dispute between him and his brother and
sister regarding said house. Nothing has come in his cross-
examination against the accused persons or in favour of
prosecution.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 36 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
POLICE WITNESSES
64. PW8 HC Rama Kant proved his visit to the spot at
Jagatpuri, Delhi where deceased Chand Kishor committed
suicide and he proved the seizure of suicide note, Ex.P1 and
rope, Ex.P2 vide memo, Ex.PW2/A. In his cross-examination, he
did not comment whether suicide note could be manipulated and
denied that no seizure was effected in his presence.
65. PW10 is a formal witness, who collected the result of
FSL and submitted before the Court.
66. PW11 had only filed the charge-sheet against accused
persons u/s 306/34 IPC.
67. PW12 IO SI Sahib Singh stated the incorrect date of
information of suicide in his deposition as he stated that he
received it on 19.12.2013 and later corrected it to 16.12.2013.
PW12 had seen deceased Chand Kishor hanging and his dead
body was handed over to PW2, but the death of deceased by
suicide is not disputed. PW12 further corroborated that suicide
note was produced by PW2, but he stated that it was recovered
from pant of deceased, but the same is not relevant in the light of
consistent testimony of PW1 and PW2 that it was recovered from
Kurta.
68. PW12 proved the rukka, Ex.PW12/A and site plan,
Ex.PW12/B, but the spot is not disputed. PW12 did not support
the prosecution in entirety and leading questions were asked and
then, he admitted that postmortem was conducted on 17.12.2013
and PW2 Rahul produced suicide note and rope together on
17.12.2013, which was seized by him and PW2 produced
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 37 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:50:09
+0530
collaboration agreement on 04.01.2014, but there is nothing on
record about the original.
69. PW12 deposed that he interrogated accused persons,
who admitted having executed the said collaboration agreement,
but any such admission on part of accused, even if made to IO
during investigation, especially when retracted during trial, is not
admissible and accused persons have denied executing said
collaboration agreement, Ex.PW2/D. PW11 and PW12 have
admitted that they have not made Satender Sharma or Ladi
Sardar, named in the suicide note, as accused.
70. In his cross-examination, PW12 denied that no suicide
note was submitted by Rahul Sabharwal or that said blank
cheques, delivery receipt and account opening form and 9 pages
of diary were manipulated. PW12 admitted that he did not make
any effort to find out mental state of deceased prior to his suicide,
if he was suffering from depression and he did not collect any
document qua financial capacity of deceased.
The proper investigation was not done by the IO nor
he deposed the proper contents in his deposition and the benefit
of defective investigation has to go to the accused in the absence
of any clinching evidence proved on record against the accused
persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
71. Accused Raja Singh and Yatinder Kumar Sharma in
their statements u/s 351 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. denied the
incriminating evidence put to them and stated that they were
falsely implicated and took the defence that said suicide note was
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 38 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 15:50:13
2026.05.20
manipulated, but the prosecution has been able to prove the
suicide note as discussed in the preceding paras.
72. Accused persons examined one defence witness i.e.
DW1 Amit Kumar Pandey, who brought the summoned record
i.e. ITRs of deceased Chand Kishor for period of 2010-11, 2011-
12 and 2012-13, Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3
respectively and he was authorized by Mr. M C Benjamin, who
signed the same, vide letter Ex.DW1/4. The said witness only
brought the record of ITRs, which shows the income of deceased
during that period and it was neither too much nor less as lastly it
was Rs. 3,08,920/-, but this income is not relevant to the fact in
issue wherein deceased has allegedly parted Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to
accused persons and the same is not shown in these ITRs and
otherwise also it is not proved by prosecution that deceased
actually paid the said amount to accused persons.
73. The accused persons have also taken the defence that
there was no overt act or direct or proximate link, which had
triggered the deceased to commit suicide nor they had abetted the
suicide of deceased by exhorting any specific words or by any
other way, which left the deceased with no alternative except to
take his own life and there was no mens rea.
Section 107 IPC. Abetment of a thing
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 that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to doing of that thing; or
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 39 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:50:17
+0530
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
74. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court held in para 40 that:-
True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a
humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme act of ending
his own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily mean that the
alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead the victim to eventual death by
his own or her own hands. We find no such instigation on the part of the
accused in this case, or a definitive abetment to suicide, as alleged in the
FIR.
Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 ,
wherein it was held that:-
“A case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the
wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This
Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that
she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20 that:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused
had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 40 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:50:22
+0530
14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal Vs.
Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, wherein it was held so:
“If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
75. In Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1
SCC 707, it was held by Hon’ble SC that:
“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 S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12
SCC 190 it was held by Hon’ble SC 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 which 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.”
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2009) 16 SCC 605, it was held by Hon’ble SC that:
“Different individuals in the same situation react and behave
differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus
accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual’s
suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mentalState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 41 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:50:26
+0530
pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and
exacerbating contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to end his own life,
which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from
intolerable self.”
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8
SCC 628, was a case in which the accused was alleged to have
continuously harassed and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he
was still alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note in
which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having driven him to
suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that
there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could
even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the
I.P.C.
In Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr ,
2024 SCC Online SC 3835, it was held by Hon’ble SC that:
“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
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that
he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a
charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the
positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit
suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person beingState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 42 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:50:35 +0530
apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section
cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect,
on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other
option but to commit suicide”
76. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (Supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“The Court noted that before a person may be said to have
abetted the commission of suicide, they “must have played an active role by
an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide”.
In Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana (CA No. 93/2019
dated 18.01.2019), a two judge Bench of Hon’ble SC, held as
follows:
“9. 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. 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.”
In Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (CA No.
40/2011 dated 01.10.2020), a three judge Bench of Hon’ble SC,
held as follows:
“15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove
the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec. 107 of the IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine theState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 43 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:50:40
+0530
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record
to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.”
77. In Reena (Supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court
discharged the accused and held in Para 25 that:
“The reading of the suicide note clearly shows that the
petitioner at no point of time instigated, goaded, incited and encouraged the
deceased with such an intention that he should commit suicide. The
deceased appears to be a weak character who was not in a position to face
the ups and downs of life and he adopted the short cut method in order to
bring an end to his agony and worldly affairs”.
78. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal)
687, has discussed, as to what constitutes abetment and the
relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under;-
“13. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below
have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the
deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July,
1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and
had reportedly told the deceased ‘to go and die’. For this, the courts relied on
a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section
161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 when reportedly the deceased, after
coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had
humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi
Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is
annexed as annexure P -3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we
find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant
had asked him ‘to go and die’. Even if we accept the prosecution story that
the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not
constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulateState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 44 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:50:45
+0530
or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in
a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a
fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have
been told to the deceased were on 25 th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The
deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased
had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between on
think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive
language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 derived
the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27 th July, 1998
is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25 th
July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27 th July, 1998
would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel
taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used
the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had
escaped notice of the courts below.”
79. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, held that there
should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by
the accused and that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the
other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect and it
is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases
of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
80. In the present case, there was no positive overt act on
the part of the accused persons just before the death of deceased
or for a continuous period to make him commit suicide. The
deceased could have taken the recourse of law by filing criminal
complaint before police or court or by filing civil suit against the
accused persons for redressal of his grievances like recovery of
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 45 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
his money, specific performance of a contract in the said
collaboration agreement etc., but instead of choosing these legal
forums/courts, he decided to end his life, rather than fighting
against the accused persons and thus, the acts as mentioned in the
suicide note, Ex.P1 by the deceased are not sufficient to prove
the mens rea on part of the accused persons as it is settled in the
said judgments that different persons react differently in different
situations and suicide was not the last resort for the deceased.
The deceased had committed the suicide on 16.12.2013 and the
alleged collaboration agreement was executed on 16.01.2012 and
the last payment was alleged to have paid by the deceased on
28.04.2012, which was received on said agreement, Ex.PW2/D
by accused Yatinder Kumar Sharma, which shows that he
committed suicide after 1.8 years and after more than 10 months
from the last sale deed executed by accused persons in favour of
said Satinder Kumar Sharma, Ex.PW2/DX3. This itself shows
that there was no immediate act by the accused persons, which
had driven deceased to commit suicide and as sufficient time was
passed after execution of last sale deed and accused persons had
neither provoke nor incited or encouraged the deceased to
commit suicide and they have a valid defence that his son (PW2)
was sad, which weighed heavily on the mind of deceased and it
has come on record in testimony of PW2 that he passed CA
Exam in 4 attempts and it is likely that for the same reason, PW2
used to remain sad and accused persons had no occasion to read
the mind of deceased that he may commit act and it is settled in
the aforesaid judgments that mere allegation of harassmentState Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 46 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:50:53
+0530
without there being any positive act proximate to the time of
occurrence is not sufficient to prove the charge u/s 306 IPC and
thus, the allegation of deceased that accused persons had spit and
urinated on him and threatened him and that to without any
specific date, time and place cannot be said to be proved against
accused.
81. Even if the said suicide note is to be treated as dying
declaration, which is relevant u/s 32(1) of IEA and is an
exception to the hearsay rule, the dying declaration can be
sufficient to convict an accused, but the Court should generally
look for corroborative evidence, when the declaration is not free
from suspicion or when the circumstances cast doubt on its
reliability. In Ram Nath Madho Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of MP,
AIR 1953 SC 420), it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
“12. It is settled law that it is not safe to convict an accused
person merely on the evidence frunished by a dying declaration without
further corroboration because such a statement is not made on oath and is
not subject to cross-examination and because the maker of it might be
mentally and physically in a state of confusion and drawing upon his
imagination why he was making the declaration….”
82. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported
in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has
observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on
the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by
the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to
go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
83. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt.
13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon’ble Supreme
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 47 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
15:50:58 +0530
Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two
views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is
favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt
shall have to be given to the accused.
84. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held
that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the
Judgments titled as ‘Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Guntur‘, reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as ‘Raj
Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan‘, reported
as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance
between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by
way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by
the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict,
and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused persons.
Thus, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the
accused persons and as such prosecution could not prove the
charge u/s 306 r/w 109 IPC against the accused persons.
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 48 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:51:02
+0530
CONCLUSION
85. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record
by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
Raja Singh and Yatinder Kumar Sharma u/s 306 r/w 109 IPC and
case against accused Sandeep Kapoor @ Rinku has already been
abated.
86. Consequently, the accused Raja Singh and Yatinder
Kumar Sharma are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 306
r/w 109 IPC.
87. The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of
Hon’ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS 19th DAY OF MAY 2026.
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Delhi
19.05.2026
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 49 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
15:51:06
+0530
Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined.
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witnesses No.
1. NA Eye Witness
2. NA Witness of last seen
circumstances
3. NA Medical Jurist
4. PW12 SI Sahib Singh IO
5. PW2 Rahul Sabharwal Complainant/First
InformantSpecimen Chart for Exhibited Documents.
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved
No. by/Attested by
1. Inquest —
Panchnama/Memo
2. Recovery of suicide note, Ex.P1. PW1, PW2, PW4,
PW8 and PW12
3. Arrest Memo NA
4. Post-mortem Report, Ex.PA3 Admitted by
accused persons.
5. FSL Report, Ex.PW6/A PW6
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 50 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:51:10 +0530
Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals.
Material Description of the Proved by/Attested
Object No. Exhibit by
1. Weapon of offence. NA
2. Clothing accused/victim NA
3. Mobile NA
Phone/Electronic Object
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity NA
card
6. Rope, Ex.P2 PW1, PW2, PW4 and
PW12
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20
15:51:16 +0530
KUMAR RAJAT
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
19.05.2026
State Vs. Raja Singh & Anr. FIR No. 601/2013 PS Jagat Puri Page 51 of 51
