Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence and Be Free from Suspicion – Appeared after 20 Days Raised Doubt : Supreme Court Acquits Accused

Supreme Court of India acquitting four individuals convicted for abetment of suicide. The Court ruled that there was no direct or indirect act of incitement or abetment to drive the deceased to commit suicide, setting aside the judgments of both the trial court and the Gujarat High Court.

The case revolved around the suicide of Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar on April 25, 2009, who allegedly consumed poison due to blackmailing by the accused. His wife, Jaybalaben, filed the First Information Report (FIR) after a delay of 20 days, on May 14, 2009, accusing the four appellants—Geetaben (a cleaner in the deceased’s office), her mother Jasiben, her husband Dahyabhai, and relative Babubhai Patel—of blackmailing her husband with compromising photographs and videos, coercing him into embezzling money from his office, which led to his suspension.

The trial court convicted all four accused under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction on December 17, 2013.

The Supreme Court cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the so-called suicide note, which surfaced 20 days after the death. The Court observed, "A dying declaration must inspire confidence, remain free from suspicion, and must be proved beyond doubt. A note appearing after 20 days, with no clear explanation for the delay, raises serious concerns about its credibility."

The handwriting expert who allegedly authenticated the note was never examined before the trial court, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that expert opinion, unless tested through cross-examination, cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence.

Referring to Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, the Court reiterated, "Expert evidence as to handwriting is merely opinion evidence. It cannot substitute substantive proof and must be corroborated by direct or circumstantial evidence."

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had directly or indirectly incited the deceased to commit suicide. The Court relied on precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020), holding that mere harassment, without proximate and immediate incitement to suicide, does not constitute abetment.

"To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had actively instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide. No such act was established in this case," the Court held.

The Court took strong note of the unexplained delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR, observing that, "Delay in filing an FIR in criminal cases, particularly where a suicide note is crucial evidence, raises legitimate doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The longer the delay, the greater the possibility of embellishment and false implication."

The prosecution failed to produce any of the alleged compromising photographs or videos used to blackmail the deceased. The Court noted that no money or ornaments allegedly extorted from the deceased were recovered from the accused.

"The substratum of the prosecution's case collapses when the very basis of blackmail—recovery of money, jewelry, or photographs—remains unproven," the Court stated.

The postmortem confirmed that the deceased consumed Dichlorvos Organophosphorus Non-thio poison, but the prosecution failed to prove where or how the deceased procured the poison. The Court cited Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2024), holding that,

"In cases of poisoning, recovery of the substance consumed is a critical link in the chain of evidence. Failure to establish this link weakens the prosecution’s case considerably."

Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court ruled, "No act of incitement, coercion, or direct abetment has been established. The evidence does not meet the threshold required for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. Mere allegations of blackmail, without substantive proof or proximate instigation, cannot justify punishment."

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted. The Court ordered that their bail bonds be discharged immediately.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC requires more than mere allegations—it requires clear and proximate acts of incitement leading directly to the suicide. The delayed discovery of a suicide note, lack of corroborative evidence, and failure to establish blackmail or financial extortion all contributed to the acquittal.

Date of decision : March 5, 2025