PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 432 : 2025 INSC 322

                 Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors.
                                 v.
                          State of Gujarat
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2014)
                               05 March 2025
               [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The four appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.306 and
       114 of Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
       for 5 years. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
       Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the conviction
       and sentence.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306 and 114 – Victim-deceased died by
       consuming poison – It was alleged that one cleaning worker
       in his office had trapped him in a love scandal – A note was
       found from the pocket of deceased stating that the said
       cleaning worker and her family members were blackmailing
       victim after taking various photographs and videos of him
       in compromising position – FIR was lodged – Trial Court
       convicted the four appellants u/ss.306 and 114 of Penal Code,
       1860 – The conviction was confirmed by the High Court –
       Correctness:
       Held: On perusal of evidence of record, it would reveal that the
       incident had occurred on 25.04.2009 and the complaint was filed
       14.05.2009 – There is an unexplained delay of 20 days in lodging
       the FIR – There are significant inconsistencies in the evidence of
       the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence – PW-2 stated
       in her substantive evidence that when she reached her house
       she saw dead body of her husband (deceased) – However, in
       her cross-examination, she stated that when she reached home
       relatives had already taken her husband to hospital – When
       the panchnama was drawn on 25.04.2009, no note was found



* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                            433

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


     on the body of the deceased – PW-2 stated that from the time
     of death till the lodging of complaint, the suicide note was with
     PW-7 – This cast serious aspersions about the credibility of the
     suicide note – PW-6 stated that his niece told him about his
     brother-deceased, then he went to the house of deceased and
     at that time PW-7 was also present there – On the other hand,
     PW-7 stated that his brother PW-6 came to his house and told
     him about deceased and thereafter he rushed to deceased’s
     house – Such inconsistencies clearly impeach the credibility
     of the prosecution witnesses – Nothing is placed on record to
     show recovery of any jewellery (ornaments) by the police from
     the accused persons – No signed cheques of the deceased
     or cheque book or passbook of the deceased were recovered
     and exhibited in court – Therefore, the very sub-stratum of the
     prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal
     gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat – Further, there is no
     recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at
     the place of occurrence – Also, the prosecution did not examine
     the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as an expert witness –
     The records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted
     genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert – Finally, even
     if the suicide note is taken as correct and genuine, there is no act
     of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date
     on which the deceased committed suicide – No act is attributed
     to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of
     such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but
     to commit suicide – In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
     any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against
     the appellants – Consequently, the impugned judgment and order
     of the High Court and of the trial court are hereby set aside.
     [Paras 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 45, 46]
     Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Opinion of handwriting
     expert – Discussed. [Paras 42-44]

                              Case Law Cited
     Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR
     247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
     of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 13 SCR 230 : (2009) 16 SCC 605;
     Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15
434                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana
       [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301; Rajesh v. State of
       Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359; Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244;
       Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka (2024) SCC
       Online SC 3541; Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC
       1020; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [2002] 3
       SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371; Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State
       of Karnataka [2024] 3 SCR 329 : 2024 INSC 156; Shashi Kumar
       Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased) AIR 1964
       SC 529; Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [1980] 2 SCR 249 : (1980) 1
       SCC 704; Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana [2010] 10 SCR 151 :
       (2010) 9 SCC 286 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
       (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

                               List of Keywords
       Abetment to suicide; Abets; Instigation; Section 306 IPC; Positive
       action proximate to the time of occurrence; Mens rea; Inconsistent
       testimony; Veracity of the evidence; Credibility of witness; Suicide
       Note; Panchnama; Delay in lodging FIR; Expert Evidence;
       Handwriting Expert; Consumption of poison; Handwriting is opinion
       evidence.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1388 of 2014
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2013 of the High Court
       of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLA No. 626 of 2011

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Rajiv Kumar, Sanjeev Gupta, Bhanu Kapoor, J.K. Mishra,
       Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       435

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

     This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
     order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
     Ahmedabad (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal
     No. 626 of 2011.
2.   It may be mentioned that the four appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4.
     They were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
     Mehsana vide the judgment and order dated 12.05.2011 in Special
     Atrocity Case No. 53/2009 under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian
     Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to rigorous
     imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00
     each with a default stipulation.
3.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants
     preferred Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2011 before the High Court.
     State of Gujarat also filed Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2011 for
     enhancement of sentence. By the common judgment and order dated
     17.12.2013, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants
     and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants
     by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (‘trial court’ for
     short). The appeal filed by the State was also dismissed.
4.   It is against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.2013
     passed by the High Court that the appellants preferred the related
     SLP (Crl.) No. 2809/2014. However, State did not challenge before
     this Court dismissal of its appeal by the High Court.
5.   This Court by order dated 07.04.2014 had issued notice both on
     the special leave petition as well as on the prayer for bail. By order
     dated 04.07.2014, leave was granted. Thereafter, vide the order
     dated 17.10.2014, this Court granted bail to appellant No. 4. Vide
     the order dated 11.05.2015, appellant No. 1 was also granted bail.
     Thereafter, by the order dated 14.09.2015, appellant Nos. 2 and 3
     were granted bail.
6.   Prosecution case in brief is that one Jaybalaben lodged first
     information before the Mehsana Taluka police station on 14.05.2009
436                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       stating that at 08:00 AM on 25.04.2009, she and her daughter Priyanka
       had gone to the Amipura water park dispensary as she was working
       there. At around 01:00 PM, one Jayantibhai Kalidas, a neighbour,
       came to her dispensary and told her that her mother-in-law was ill.
       On hearing this, she and her daughter came back home immediately
       in a rickshaw. When she reached her house, she saw many people
       had gathered there. She went inside the house and saw her husband
       Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai lying on a cot with his younger and elder
       brothers standing nearby. Though she tried to revive him, he did not
       respond; he had already died. As she started weeping, the ladies who
       were present there told her that her husband had consumed poison.
       Foul smell of poison was coming from his mouth. First informant
       stated that her husband was taken to the village dispensary where
       he was declared dead. Thereafter police came. After completion of
       necessary paper works, body of her husband was taken to Mehsana
       Civil Hospital for postmortem examination on completion of which
       the body was handed over to the family.
       6.1.   Jaybalaben continued with her narration. She stated that
              about a year ago, a case of misappropriation was registered
              against her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai in his office.
              She and her elder brother-in-law Jayantibhai had asked her
              husband as to why he needed so much of money to which
              the reply of her husband was that one cleaning worker in
              his office by the name Geetaben had trapped him in a love
              scandal and thereafter started blackmailing him for money. It
              was for this reason that he had to withdraw money from the
              office to give her.
       6.2.   When her elder brother-in-law Jayantibhai called Geetaben, her
              mother Jasiben, her husband Dahyabhai and relative Babubhai
              Patel to return the money, they initially agreed to do so but
              did not return. They also took away ornaments (jewellery).
       6.3.   Jaybalaben also stated that at the time of death of her husband,
              they found one note of two pages from the pocket of her
              husband’s trouser which was shown to her by Jayantibhai,
              her elder brother-in-law. She stated that from that note, it
              was apparent that Geetaben and her family members were
              blackmailing her husband after taking various photographs
              and videos of him with her in compromising position. She
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         437

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


            stated that her husband had also stolen ornaments (jewellery)
            of her daughter and gave those to Geetaben and her family
            members. It was for this reason that her husband Dashrathbhai
            Karsanbhai had consumed poison.
7.   The aforesaid complaint was registered as I.C.R. No. 107/2009
     by the Mehsana Taluka police station under Sections 306/114 of
     IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of The Scheduled Castes and the
     Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Prevention
     of Atrocities Act’ hereinafter). The investigating officer on conclusion
     of investigation filed chargesheet against the appellants before the
     Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. As the case was triable
     by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Additional
     Sessions Judge, Mehsana (trial court) where the case was numbered
     as Special Atrocities Case No. 53/2009. Prosecution examined as
     many as 14 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove
     its case. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the
     appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Appellants denied the prosecution case
     and alleged false implication.
8.   On consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence and
     after hearing the parties, trial court vide the judgment and order
     dated 12.05.2011 convicted the appellants under Sections 306/114
     of IPC but acquitted them of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of
     the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Upon such conviction, the trial court
     sentenced the appellants to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine
     of Rs. 10,000.00 each with a default stipulation for the offence
     punishable under Sections 306/114 IPC.
9.   Appellants assailed the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the trial
     court before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2011. As
     pointed out above, State also filed Criminal Appeal No. 796/2011
     for enhancement of sentence.
10. High Court vide the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 upheld
    the conviction and sentence of the appellants and dismissed their
    appeal. High Court also did not find any good ground to enhance
    the sentence. Consequently, the criminal appeal filed by the State
    was dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the trial court
    and the High Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution case
438                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       was not supported by any material evidence, such as, video cassette
       and objectionable photographs of the deceased with the accused
       persons etc. Therefore, the story of blackmailing by the accused
       persons compelling the deceased to commit suicide is not at all
       believable.
       11.1. From the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, no
             intention on the part of the accused persons to aid or instigate or
             abet the deceased to commit suicide is discernible. Appellants
             were neither present at the time and place of recovery of the
             dead body nor at any proximate point of time. Therefore, no
             case for abetment to commit suicide can be said to have been
             made out against the appellants.
       11.2. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
             so-called suicide note was produced before the police 20 days
             after the death of the deceased. As such, no reliance can be
             placed on such suicide note.
       11.3. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below
             failed to appreciate that PW-7 Jayantibhai Karshanbhai Parmar,
             elder brother of the deceased, did not support the case of the
             prosecution. As such the charge under Section 306 IPC cannot
             be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the
             appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
       11.4. He also points out that according to the prosecution case, the
             deceased had given money and ornaments to the appellants on
             their blackmailing him. But there was neither recovery of any
             money nor ornaments from the accused persons (appellants).
             Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there could
             be various other reasons which compelled the deceased
             to take the extreme step, such as, disciplinary proceeding
             initiated in his office against him for misappropriation of money
             leading to his suspension but certainly no case of abetment
             to commit suicide can be said to have been made out against
             the appellants.
       11.5. That being the position, learned counsel contends that
             appellants have been wrongly convicted under Sections
             306/114 IPC and, therefore, are entitled to a clear acquittal.
             Appeal should accordingly be allowed.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      439

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that death
    of Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar had taken place due to
    consumption of poison. This has been proved by the postmortem
    report. He submits that the suicide note (Ex. 33) was written in the
    own handwriting of the deceased and this has been proved as per
    the opinion of the handwriting expert. From the suicide note, it is
    apparent that appellants had extracted money from the deceased by
    blackmailing him with compromising photographs of the deceased
    with appellant No. 3. As the deceased became unable to withstand
    the same, he took the drastic step.
     12.1. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on a conjoint
           reading of all the oral and documentary evidence, it is evident
           that prosecution had proved the charge against the appellants
           beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court rightly
           convicted the appellants under the aforesaid provisions of law
           which conviction has been affirmed by the High Court. He,
           therefore, submits that there is no merit in this appeal and
           consequently the appeal should be dismissed.
13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
    the due consideration of the Court.
14. Before we proceed to advert to the evidence of the material
    prosecution witnesses and to analyse the same, it would be apposite
    to refer to the legal provisions and the judicial precedents relevant
    for adjudication of the present criminal appeal.
15. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence in India. Section 309 IPC
    says that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act
    towards such act, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
    term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. However,
    once suicide is carried out, the offence is complete. Considering the
    nature of the offence, obviously such a person would be beyond
    the reach of the law. Therefore, question of penalising him would
    not arise but whoever abets the commission of such suicide would
    be penalised under Section 306 IPC. Punishment prescribed under
    Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term
    which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. What
    Section 306 IPC says is that if any person commits suicide, then
    whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished
    as above.
440                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


16. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 IPC is ‘abets’. ‘Abetment’
    is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a person
    would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person
    to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or
    persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally
    aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. There are two
    explanations to Section 107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person
    by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material
    fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or
    procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is
    said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 clarifies that
    whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an
    act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to
    aid the doing of that act.
17. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification of Section 107 IPC.
    What Section 114 IPC says is that whenever any person is absent
    but was present when the act or offence for which he would be
    punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall
    be deemed to have committed such an act or offence and would be
    liable to be punished as an abettor.
18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,1 this Court held that to
    ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do
    ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary
    that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act
    should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
    Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course
    of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other
    option except to commit suicide, then ‘instigation’ may be inferred.
    A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
    consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be ‘instigation’.
19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State
    (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2 observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a
    person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage
    the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This
    Court summed up the constituents of ‘abetment’ as under:


1   (2001) 9 SCC 618
2   (2009) 16 SCC 605
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          441

          Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


            (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
            by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may
            even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
            pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or
            wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move
            forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
            (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
            encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in
            the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens
            rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal3 is a case
    where this Court held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide,
    there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
    commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without
    there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence
    on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to
    commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not
    be sustainable. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in
    case of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana.4
21. After considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, this
    Court in Rajesh versus State of Haryana 5 held that conviction under
    Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment
    without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
    occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
    person to commit suicide.
22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a
    person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without
    a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or
    aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides,
    in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be
    a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
23. This Court in Amudha versus State 6 held that there has to be an
    act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date


3   (2010) 1 SCC 707
4   (2019) 17 SCC 301
5   (2020) 15 SCC 359
6   2024 INSC 244
442                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should
       not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of
       such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to
       take the drastic step of committing suicide.
24. Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State
    of Karnataka,7 this Court observed that discord and differences in
    domestic life are quite common in society. Commission of suicide
    largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless
    some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is
    ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under
    Section 306 IPC.
25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra 8 is a case where this Court
    after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal
    position in the following manner:
              14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
              interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
              established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide,
              it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts
              of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused,
              which must be in close proximity to the commission of
              suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement
              should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
              suicide and should put the victim in such a position that
              he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
       25.1. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred to its earlier
             decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P.9
             and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours
             between using of abusive language by the accused and the
             commission of suicide would not amount to a proximate act.
26. Having surveyed the relevant legal provisions and the case laws on
    the subject, let us now deal with the material prosecution witnesses.
27. PW-2 is Jayabalaben Dashrathbhai Parmar, the informant. In her
    evidence in chief, she stated that the incident had occurred on the


7   (2024) SCC Online SC 3541
8   2024 INSC 1020
9   (2002) 5 SCC 371
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          443

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


     25th of the fourth month (April). She deposed that she worked as a
     clean worker in the water park, having studied up to 10th standard.
     Her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar was serving in the
     postal department. Her husband’s last posting was at Linch. They
     had 5 children, 3 girls and 2 boys. She stated that she came to know
     later that there was a misappropriation case against her husband
     in his office.
     27.1. Geetaben of Linch (appellant/accused No. 3) befriended and
           became close to them. That way she started coming home.
           PW-2 alleged that by performing some ‘black art’ and giving
           her husband some liquid substance, she made him her own.
           Geetaben left her husband after taking away his money.
     27.2. On 25.04.2009, PW-2 had gone to the water park in connection
           with her service. During noon, one Jayantibhai Kalabhai Parmar
           came to her office and told her that her mother-in-law was ill.
           On hearing this, she came back home. In front of her residence,
           she saw a huge crowd. As she entered her house, she saw
           the dead body of her husband. She tried to wake him up by
           shaking him but there was no response.
     27.3. PW-2 stated that she had some ornaments but those had been
           taken away by the accused persons. She stated that she did
           not notice anything at the time of the death of her husband
           but later on she found one slip (note). She read that note
           wherefrom she could gather that lot many things were written
           in that letter. In the note, it was written that the appellants had
           trapped him and after making video cassette, they used to
           blackmail him. Fed up with such harassment, he committed
           suicide by consuming poison.
     27.4. She, therefore, lodged a complaint before the police on
           14.05.2009 (Ex. 22/1).
     27.5. PW-2 was cross-examined. She stated in her cross-examination
           that the incident had occurred on 25.04.2009. Police had taken
           her two statements on 14.05.2009 and 15.05.2009. In so far
           the misappropriation case of her husband is concerned, PW-2
           stated that she and her husband had paid back Rs. 1,20,000.00
           to the postal department, receipt of which was given. She
           also admitted that there was a case against her husband
           for which he was arrested by the police though released on
444                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


             bail subsequently. She however admitted that the chit (note)
             was found by her elder brother-in-law (PW-7) and not by her.
             Before she reached her home on 25.04.2004, relatives had
             taken her husband to the hospital.
       27.6. Jayantibhai, the elder brother-in-law (PW-7), told PW-2 about
             the note on the next day and that is how she came to know
             that her husband had written the note. When panchnama
             was drawn on 25.04.2009, no note was found. From the
             time of death till the lodging of complaint, the note was with
             PW-7. PW-2 did not go to the police station to say about the
             note. She described the relationship between the accused as
             follows: Geetaben (appellant/accused No. 3) who used to work
             in the office of her husband; appellant/accused No. 4 is the
             mother of Geetaben; appellant/accused No. 2 is the husband
             of Geetaben; and appellant/accused No. 1 is a relative of the
             other accused persons. PW-2 stated that neither Geetaben
             nor the accused persons had ever come to her residence.
       27.7. PW-2 stated that her husband was suspended from service
             about 2 years back. He was worried about the misappropriation
             case. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the note was not written
             by her husband and that the accused persons had not taken
             away money from him.
28. Amrutbhai Karshanbhai Parmar is PW-6. Deceased was his brother.
    On that fateful day, while he was having lunch at home, his niece
    came to him and told him that something had happened to her father.
    Then he went to the house of his brother Dashrathbhai and found
    him lying motionless. He believed that he had consumed poison.
    When he took his brother to the hospital, he was declared dead. At
    that time, his other brother Jayantibhai (PW-7) was also there. On
    searching the body of his brother, PW-6 stated that they found one
    note from his pocket. In that note, the deceased had mentioned 3-4
    names further stating that they were blackmailing him; so he had
    committed suicide. It was in the own handwriting of Dashrathbhai.
    However, he stated that he did not know the persons whose name
    were mentioned in the note.
29. PW-7 is the elder brother of the deceased, Jayantibhai Karshanbhai
    Parmar. Narrating about the incident, he stated that while he was
    at home during noon, his brother Amrutbhai came and told him that
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         445

         Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


     Dashrathbhai was lying unconscious. They rushed to Dashrathbhai’s
     house and found him in an unconscious condition. They dialled
     108 and also informed the police. They took Dashrathbhai to the
     hospital where he was declared dead. PW-7 stated that though
     he searched the body of his brother Dashrathbhai, he did not find
     anything. Contradicting the above statement, he stated that though
     one note was found, who found that note and what was written in
     it, he did not know. He stated that he did not know for what reason,
     his brother died.
     29.1. This witness was declared hostile.
     29.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had no idea that in
           his statement before the police he had stated that one note was
           found in his brother’s pocket wherein it was written that he had
           an affair with Geetaben (appellant No. 3) and for that reason
           he had committed suicide. He denied making any statement
           before the police on 15.05.2009 that his brother Dashrathbhai
           had given the misappropriated money to Geetaben and that
           the accused persons were blackmailing his brother by showing
           him compromising photos and videos of him and Geetaben.
           He also denied making any statement before the police that
           his deceased brother had given ornaments meant for his
           daughter’s marriage to the appellants.
30. PW-11 is Champaben Nathalal, women head constable. In her
    evidence, she stated that while she was on duty in the afternoon
    on 14.05.2009, the complaint came to be registered. In her
    cross-examination, she stated that as per Diary No. 17/09 dated
    24.04.2009 (sic), she was on duty when inquest was carried out.
    She stated that no note was found at the time of the inquest and
    no such note was presented at the police station.
31. On a careful analysis of the evidence tendered by the above
    prosecution witnesses, it would reveal that though the incident had
    occurred on 25.04.2009, the complaint was lodged by PW-2 on
    14.05.2009, thus there being a delay of 20 days. Though there is
    a GD entry on 25.04.2009, it appears that barring postmortem and
    inquest, no FIR was registered and no other investigation was carried
    out by the police. It was only after lodging of the complaint that police
    recorded the statement of PW-2 on 14.05.2009 and 15.05.2009 and
    of the other witnesses thereafter. Though delay in lodging of first
446                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       information is not always fatal but considering the fact that in this
       case, the delay is of 20 days which has remained unexplained, it
       would have a material bearing on the prosecution case.
32. PW-11 who served as the head constable in the concerned police
    station, deposed that she was on duty in the afternoon of 14.05.2009
    when the complaint came to be registered. In her cross-examination,
    she stated that she was also on duty when Diary Entry No. 17/09
    dated 24.04.2009 was made. She was categorical in her statement
    that no suicide note was found at the time of the inquest; no such
    note was presented at the police station either.
33. There are significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution
    witnesses regarding the occurrence. PW-2 stated in her substantive
    evidence that on being informed about her mother-in-law’s illness, she
    had come home from her office. On reaching home, she saw a huge
    crowd in front of her residence. As she entered her house, she saw
    the dead body of her husband. However, in her cross-examination,
    she stated that when she reached home on that fateful afternoon,
    the relatives had already taken her husband to the hospital. Such
    inconsistent testimony cast serious doubts about the veracity of the
    evidence of the said prosecution witness.
34. In so far the suicide note is concerned, PW-2 stated that PW-7
    had told her on the next day about the same. It was only then that
    she came to know that her husband had written a suicide note.
    In fact, when the panchnama was drawn on 25.04.2009, no note
    was found on the body of the deceased. She stated that from the
    time of death till the lodging of complaint, the suicide note was with
    PW-7. This again cast serious aspersions about the credibility of
    the suicide note.
35. There is another significant inconsistency. PW-6 stated that while
    he was at home having lunch, his niece came and told him that
    something had happened to her father (Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai
    Parmar). So he went to the residence of his brother and found him
    lying motionless. At that time, PW-7 was also present. On the other
    hand, PW-7 stated that while he was at home, his brother PW-6
    came and told him that brother Dashrathbhai was lying unconscious.
    It was thereafter that he rushed to Dashrathbhai’s house. Such
    inconsistencies clearly impeach the credibility of the above two
    prosecution witnesses.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          447

           Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


36. That apart, there is nothing on record to show recovery of any
    jewellery (ornaments) by the police from the accused persons.
    No signed cheques of the deceased or cheque book or passbook
    of the deceased were recovered and exhibited in court. In such
    circumstances, the very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that
    the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the
    deceased falls flat.
37. Before we move on to the alleged suicide note, it would be appropriate
    to advert to the postmortem report. As per the said report, cause
    of death was due to consumption of Dichlorvos Organophosphorus
    Non-thio poison. The doctor who carried out the postmortem
    examination, Dr. Prakash Laxmandas, deposed as PW-1. He stated
    that in the course of postmortem examination, 400 cc of coffee
    coloured foul smelling liquid was found in the small intestine and as
    per postmortem note, the same was Dichlorvos Organophosphorus
    Non-thio poison. He stated that if anybody drinks such poisonous
    substance then this type of death can happen.
38. However, there is no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed
    by the deceased at the place of occurrence. No bottle/container of
    such poison was recovered from the residence of the deceased.
    Moreover, the prosecution could not place before the court any
    material as to wherefrom the deceased had procured the poison.
39. In Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka,10 this Court
    opined that in a case of death due to consumption or administering
    of poison, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such
    poison is crucial. This Court held thus:
             46. …….As a general principle, it can be said that in a
             case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal
             and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery
             of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to
             the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of
             the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove
             homicide or suicide.
40. This takes us to the suicide note (Ex. 33). We have already noted
    the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide


10   2024 INSC 156
448                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       note surfaced which makes it highly suspect. Nonetheless, since it
       was exhibited, let us deal with the same. Sum and substance of the
       suicide note allegedly written by Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar (the
       deceased) with the date given as 24.04.2009 is that appellant No. 3
       had joined his office following the illness of the existing cleaner. She
       used to come to the office daily for cleaning purposes. Slowly they
       developed intimacy. It is alleged that appellant No. 3 had performed
       ‘black art’ on the deceased so much so that, he fell in love with her.
       Taking advantage of the situation, she took photographs and video
       of them in compromising position. All the accused persons were
       shameless persons. As they started blackmailing him, he initially paid
       Rs. 80,000.00 to them and thereafter started giving them ornaments.
       He also gave them his passbook and cheque books after signing on
       the cheques. Because of such blackmailing, he had to misappropriate
       money from his office for which he was suspended. It is stated that
       he was totally ruined and, therefore, he had committed suicide as
       he had no other alternative.
41. The suicide note was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
    (FSL) for examination. The Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert of
    FSL, Gandhinagar opined that the handwriting was of the deceased.
    However, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief
    Handwriting Expert as an expert witness. The records also do not
    indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report
    of the handwriting expert.
42. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since
    deceased), 11 this Court observed that expert’s evidence as to
    handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place
    of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is
    necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence
    or by circumstantial evidence.
43. In the case of Murari Lal versus State of M.P.,12 this Court opined
    that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
    identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be
    one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed
    and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought.


11   AIR 1964 SC 529
12   (1980) 1 SCC 704
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                     449

             Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


      Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no
      reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a
      handwriting expert may be accepted.
44. This Court dealt with the effect of placing reliance on the opinion
    of handwriting expert without examining him in court in Keshav
    Dutt versus State of Haryana.13 One of the questions which fell for
    consideration in that case was whether the opinion of a handwriting
    expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the
    handwriting expert. In this connection, this Court took the view that
    when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting
    expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order
    to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said
    expert. In that case, it was found that there was nothing on record
    to show that the accused persons had admitted to the report of the
    handwriting expert.
45. Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine,
    we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants
    proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No
    act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide
    which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
    alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot
    be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out
    against the appellants.
46. Accordingly and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal.
    Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
    dated 17.12.2013 and of the trial court dated 12.05.2011 are hereby
    set aside. Since the appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds
    stand discharged.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan




13   (2010) 9 SCC 286