State of Himachal Pradesh vs Anil Gupta

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 9.7.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1992 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The undisputed facts are that one Sh. S.R. Tyagi who was working in the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture committed suicide on 9.8.1990 in the morning. The prosecution case is that the accused is guilty of instigating and abetting the suicide of the deceased.

Initially prosecution had filed case against the accused as well as one lady Ms. Ranju Aery. Charges against both the accused were framed. Ms. Ranju Aery approached this Court and the charge framed against her was quashed vide judgment of this Court dated 26.12.1994 in Cr.M.P(M) No. 1318 of 1992. Thereafter the accused alone was prosecuted.

As far as the oral evidence is concerned the two witnesses which the prosecution has relied upon i.e. Sh. Rajdeep Agarwal (PW-1) and Sh. Om Parkash (PW-2) to prove the involvement of the accused Anil Gupta have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version. They have denied the fact that they ever made statement to the police that accused Anil Gupta had told them that he alongwith Ranju Aery had gone to the house of Sh. S.R. Tyagi and asked some questions from him. The entire prosecution case revolves around the suicide notes Ext. PD, Ext. PD/1, Ext. PE, Ext. PE/1, Ext. PE/2 and Ext. PE/3. Ext. PE is the first note which the deceased allegedly wrote. The deceased committed suicide at about 6.00 a.m. This note is timed 6.05 a.m. and in it is written that none except accused Anil Kumar Gupta, Junior Engineer, I.P.H, Bilaspur is responsible for the suicide. In the said note it was written that Anil Gupta alongwith one smart lady had come to the room of victim late at night. They asked some questions from the deceased. According to the deceased the conversation may have been recorded and it be presumed that this conversation never took place. In the second note of the same date recorded sometime later the deceased S.R. Tyagi had written that he had consumed two tablets of Celphos. He is loosing vision and may not survive for long time. He requested that his children be looked after by the State Government. Ext. PE/2 is another note written by the deceased where he had said his goodbye to Balram Singh and Man Singh Sagar and had requested that his children be kept in an orphanage. In the last note Ext. PD/1 it is stated that he, S.R. Tyagi is going to meet the almighty due to social ostracism. There is another note on record which is Ext. PD. This is more detailed note. But it appears that this note was first torn up and has been joined by either the police officials or the witnesses. There is contradiction between the stand of the witnesses and the police officials in this behalf as to whether the note was torn earlier or later. Even assuming that this note was written by the deceased all that is said in the note is that on the night previous to the occurrence the accused along with Ranju Aery a lady reporter had come to the room of the deceased and asked him some unnecessary questions and had also given him some black powder. Admittedly the deceased has not died due to consumption of powder but as per the post mortem report his death is on account of consumption of celphos tablets. There is nothing in the medical evidence to support the version that the deceased died due to consumption of any substance other than celphos tablets.

It would also be pertinent to mention that the wife of the deceased and her nephew and Lekh Raj Gupta were jointly facing trial for the murder of one person. Accused Anil Gupta is the brother-in-law (wife''s brother) of the co-accused Lekh Raj. He may have come and questioned the deceased but even if the version of the deceased is believed he gave some answers about which he was unsure and he was also scared that he would face social ostracism. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that it was only the visit of Anil Gupta and questions put by Ms. Ranju Aery which forced him to commit suicide. There is no evidence worth the name to show what was the action of Anil Gupta, if any, which provoked much less abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

In view of the aforesaid discussions we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.