Justice Sureshwar Thakur was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, where the accused was convicted of offenses punishable under section 306 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC for abetment to suicide.
Case Title: Ravi Bharti Vs State of Haryana
In this case
the complainant’s father Satbir Singh (since deceased) had taken a CC limit of Rs 75.0 lakh from Punjab National Bank. Sharvan Kumar (second accused) was acting as a middleman and his father obtained the facility of CC limit from the bank with the help of the acquitted accused. Pradeep Sharma, owner of M/s Shyam Trading Company, has obtained a loan by fraudulently from Punjab National Bank, Mall Road branch, Delhi in which the case was registered. The investigating officer told him that the signatures of his father Satbir were attached on these debentures.
His father Satbir told that although the signature on the loan papers of M/s Shyam Trading Company is his own but he does not know Pradeep Sharma. It is further told that these have been signed by the acquitted accused Shravan Kumar at the behest of them and Ravi Bharti (Jodi) told them that Pradeep Sharma is their relative.
On this, the complainant and his father met both, but they did not give any details about Pradeep Sharma, but said that since those papers are signed by Satbir, therefore, now they will have to face the consequences and the pair will not reveal anything further. ,
His father consumed the poisonous substance after being tortured by the acquitted accused Shravan Kumar, Ravi Bharti and Pradeep Sharma. During the investigation, the police also found a suicide note in which Satbir has mentioned the names of Ravi Bharti and acquitted the accused as the person responsible for his death. It was clearly written in the suicide note that both of them have trapped Satbir in the net and hence he has consumed poisonous substance. Satbir also put his signature at the bottom of the suicide note.
The High Court held that “in the respective deceased’s declaration in writing allegedly by the deceased concerned, and, in relation to the commission of suicide by the producer, and, in relation to the abetment by any alleged forceful abetment, the charges of imputation are made by the concerned offender.” The acts of (offenders) cannot be believed, unless all the circumstances surrounding, and, other evidence also show that such allegation is true, and/or, does not suffer from any aura of falsity, not otherwise.”
In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal.
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur
WRITTEN BY:
Karan Suri (Intern)
1 Comment
Valentine Davirro · September 23, 2022 at 7:52 am
Wow! This can be one particular of the most useful blogs We have ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Fantastic. I am also an expert in this topic therefore I can understand your hard work.