MP Mla Case Delhi

IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)-23 (MPs/MLAs Cases), ROUSE

AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 06/2019
FIR No. : 178/2012
CNR No. : DLCT-11-000518-2019
Police Station : Bharat Nagar
Under Section : 306/506/201/120-

B/466/467/468/469/471/ 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000
Date of : 06.10.2012
institution of
case
Reserved for : 01.07.2023
Judgment on
Judgment : 25.07.2023
announced on
State
Versus
1. Gopal Goyal Kanda

S/o Late Murli Dhar Goyal
R/o 436/16, Civil Lines, Gurgaon
Haryana
... Accused no.1
2. Aruna Chadha
D/o Sh.Amrit Prakash Chadha
R/o C-904, BPTP Park Life
Sector-57, Gurgaon
Haryana
SC No. 06/2019
FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 1/189
PS: Bharat Nagar
... Accused no.2
3. Chanshivroop Singh
S/o Sh.Harminder Singh
R/o H.No.2030, Sector-71
Mohali, Punjab.
... Proclaimed Offender
JUDGMENT
GENESIS OF THE CASE
1. On 05.08.2012 at about 9.20 a.m., an information was

received at PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi regarding commission
of suicide by a lady at H.No.4-C, Block No.1, Pocket-B,
Ashok Vihar, Ph.III near Kulachi Hans Raj School, New
Delhi, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 8-A.
The said DD No. 8-A was entrusted to ASI Jagbir Singh,
who alongwith Ct.Rajesh Kumar had reached at the place
of occurrence. On reaching the spot, ASI Jagbir Singh had
found the dead body of a female aged about 23 years
identified as Ms.Geetika Sharma, D/o Sh.Dinesh Kumar
Sharma, lying on the bed in her room and on inquiry, it
was revealed that she had committed suicide by hanging
herself from the ceiling fan of the same room. Inspector
Dinesh Kumar, ATO of PS Bharat Nagar and other staff
had also reached at the spot and scene of the occurrence
was also got inspected and photographed by the Crime
Team and thereafter, the dead body of Ms. Geetika Sharma
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
was shifted to mortuary of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial
Hospital for autopsy.
2. During the inspection of the place of occurrence, Inspector
Dinesh Kumar had recovered a black colour spiral diary, in
which he found a suicide note written on both sides of the
paper. On one side of the suicide note, date of 04.08.2012
was mentioned and on the other side, date of 04.05.2012
was mentioned below the signatures of deceased Geetika
Sharma. In both the suicide notes dated 04.08.2012 and
04.05.2012, deceased Geetika Sharma had held accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha,
responsible for her death as they had broken her trust and
had misused her for their own benefits and deceased had
sought punishment for their wrong deeds.
3. Thereafter, Inspector Dinesh Kumar had recorded the
statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma. In her statement, Smt.Anuradha Sharma
had stated that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined
MDLR Company as a trainee cabin crew in 2006 and in
2008, she was promoted to the post of Senior Cabin Crew
and on 31.03.2009, she was made the Co-ordinator of
MDLR Group and thereafter, in July, 2009, she was
transferred to MDLR Group of Hotels. It was further stated
that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MDLR
Group of Companies is accused A-1 i.e. Gopal Goyal
Kanda. In further statement, it was stated by Smt.Anuradha
Sharma that whenever phone of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Kanda used to come, deceased Geetika Sharma used to
become tensed. It was further stated that on 22.05.2010,
deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from MDLR Group
and had joined Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, on many
occasions, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma requesting her to call
deceased Geetika Sharma back from Dubai as it was not a
good country. It was also alleged in her statement that
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sent a forged email to
Emirates Airlines and when he was confronted about the
same, he had apologised to the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had joined
as Director in the MDLR Group of Companies in January,
2011 and later, she resigned from there to pursue her MBA
from IILM, fees of which was sponsored by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda.
4. It was further alleged that when deceased Geetika Sharma
was pursuing her MBA, then accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, used to put
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma telephonically to
join the office and after receipt of telephonic calls,
deceased Geetika Sharma used to become tensed.
5. It was further alleged that on 04.08.2012, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda had called Smt.Anuradha Sharma to
tell that deceased Geetika Sharma was required to come to
the office to sign some papers, failing which a police case
will be registered by Haryana Police. It was further alleged
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
that deceased Geetika Sharma had returned from Mumbai
after attending Fashion show of her brother, and entire
conversation which took place between Smt.Anuradha
Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, was narrated
to deceased Geetika Sharma. It was further alleged that
after listening to the entire conversation, deceased Geetika
Sharma became tensed and had requested Smt.Anuradha
Sharma to leave her alone and thereafter, she had gone to
her room. In the morning of 05.08.2012 at around 7.00
a.m., when deceased Geetika Sharma did not open her
room, then parents of deceased Geetika Sharma had found,
after peeping through window of room of deceased
Geetika Sharma, hanging from a ceiling fan with the help
of her chunni. In her statement, Smt.Anuradha Sharma had
alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma had committed
suicide due to continuous mental torture by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
Thereafter, Inspector Dinesh Kumar made an endorsement
on the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, wherein the
fact of deceased Geetika Sharma having committed
suicide, recovery of suicide note from her diary and
sending of body to hospital was mentioned and a request
was made for registration of the FIR as offence under
Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was being disclosed.
6. On receipt of the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma at PS
Bharat Nagar, FIR No. 178/12 was registered under
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Section 306/34 IPC and matter was taken up for
investigation.
INVESTIGATION AND CHARGESHEET

7. During the course of investigation, it came on record that
deceased Geetika Sharma was born on 13.12.1988 and she
was interviewed in September, 2006 for a Cabin Crew Job
in MDLR Airlines and was recruited as Trainee Cabin
Crew in October, 2006 even though she had not attained
the age of 18 years at that point of time. After the
successful completion of training, deceased Geetika
Sharma was appointed as Cabin Crew on 14.04.2007 and
promoted as Senior Cabin Crew on 28.08.2008.
Surprisingly, her promotion and her salary being doubled
happened within a short span of 1 year and four months.
Soon thereafter the next major promotion of deceased
Geetika Sharma came within 07 months when she was
promoted as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group on 31.03.2009,
with an unusual clause in her appointment letter that she
would report everyday to the Chairman i.e. accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma
was transferred to the MDLR Hotel Group on 30.06.2009
again with the unusual directive to report to accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda on daily basis.
8. During the course of investigation, it also came on record
that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the Minister of
State for Home Affairs in the Government of Haryana
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
when incident took place and he was the owner and CMD
of MDLR Group of Companies. Accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had launched MDLR Airlines in the year 2006 and
its operations were suspended in October, 2009. MDLR
Group had interests in the hotel business as well as casinos
in Goa. Accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda came in contact
with deceased Geetika Sharma when she appeared for an
interview in MDLR Airlines and he remained in contact
with her and her family till her suicide.
9. It also came on record during investigation that accused A-
2 Aruna Chadha was working in Aviation Sector since
1993 and she jointed MDLR Airlines in August, 2006 as
Head in flight and it was here that she came in contact with
deceased Geetika Sharma and also became her instructor.
At the time of the incident, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was
holding the position of Co-ordinator in MDLR Group of
Companies and had actively conspired with accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda to keep deceased Geetika Sharma
under his influence.
10. During the course of investigation, IO had seized
mobile phone bearing no.9013347100 and one laptop
belonging to deceased Geetika Sharma from the scene of
crime, at the instance of her mother namely Smt.Anuradha
Sharma, ligature material, one spiral notebook having
admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and the
documents pertaining to her employment in MDLR Group
and Emirates Airlines. The mirror image of the hard disc of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased Geetika Sharma's laptop and mobile phone were
made in the Cyber Lab, Special Cell, Delhi Police and
subsequently, both were resealed and sent to the FSL for
expert opinion.
11. During the course of investigation, post mortem of
deceased Geetika Sharma was got conducted by the Board
of Doctors constituted by the Government of Delhi and the
Board of Doctors opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia due to suicidal hanging.
12. During the course of investigation, statement of
family members of deceased Geetika Sharma and other
witnesses were recorded and from the investigation,
statement recorded of various witnesses, the following
facts emerged. It was revealed during the course of
investigation that 11 other persons were recruited
alongwith deceased Geetika Sharma in the year 2006 and
only deceased Geetika Sharma was retained in the MDLR
Group of Companies and other persons, either left on their
own or were removed by the company. Deceased Geetika
Sharma was given rapid promotions with hefty increase in
salary and appointed to Senior Management positions such
as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group, even though she had
studied only upto 12th class and had absolutely no
experience or knowledge of either the airlines or hotel
business. The recruitment of deceased Geetika Sharma as
a trainee even though when she was under age and her
rapid promotions without having any qualifications and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
with the unusual direction in her contract to report
everyday to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda shows that
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had an evil design on
deceased Geetika Sharma right from the day of her joining
in the MDLR Group and was giving her undue favours
with the intention of entrapping her.
13. It also came on record during investigation that
since MDLR Airlines had suspended its operations,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to retain
deceased Geetika Sharma as his employee, had sent
deceased Geetika Sharma to Goa to look after Mint, a
casino owned by his company in September, 2009. The
said casino was being looked after two women namely,
Ankita Singh and Nupur Mehta. In Goa, deceased Geetika
Sharma had differences with aforementioned two women,
who had trespassed into her hotel room and had taken
away her laptop and mobile without her consent.
Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had got registered a
complaint of theft and criminal intimidation against Ankita
Singh and Nupur Mehta vide FIR No. 244/09 at PS Panaji,
Goa. Disturbed by this event, deceased Geetika Sharma
returned to Delhi in September, 2009 itself and stopped
going to MDLR Office and focused on her graduate degree
course through correspondence. During this period,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda tried to contact deceased
Geetika Sharma in every possible manner and even went to
her examination centre in the disguise of a sikh person in
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
May/June, 2010. During this period, deceased Geetika
Sharma was able to secure a job in Emirates Airlines for
the post of Stewardness-II on 26.04.2010.
14. It further came on record during investigation that
when the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma’s selection in
Emirates Airlines came to the notice of accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda, he realized that deceased Geetika Sharma
would go out of his clutches and decided to place hurdles
in her path to ensure that she did not leave his group of
companies and refused to issue no objection certificate or
experience certificate to deceased Geetika Sharma. When
deceased Geetika Sharma insisted for issuance of NOC,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda hatched criminal
conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and in
pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, a forged NOC
having signature of Sh.Rajiv Parasher, who was not even
on the payroll of MDLR Group, was issued to deceased
Geetika Sharma through one Monal Sachdeva, an
employee of MDLR company. This was done with the
motive that in future, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
could easily disown the NOC and blame deceased Geetika
Sharma for the forgery.
15. It has come in the investigation that on 29.06.2010,
deceased Geetika Sharma went to Dubai and joined
Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda alongwith co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha went to
Dubai on 14.07.2012 and met deceased Geetika Sharma
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and pressurized her to come back to India and rejoin his
company MDLR. However, deceased Geetika Sharma did
not accede to the demands of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and thereafter, again on 30.07.2010, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda went to Dubai to put pressure upon
deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin his company. However,
when deceased Geetika Sharma did not accede to the
demands of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, then he
hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and appointed one Chanshivroop Singh as
Assistant HR Manager with the sole objective of ensuring
that deceased Geetika Sharma would be removed from her
job with the Emirates Airlines. Chanshivroop Singh was
sent to Dubai under the garb of investigating the issue of
forged NOC submitted by deceased Geetika Sharma to
Emirates Airlines and to make efforts to ensure her
removal from Emirates Airlines. However, since
Chanshivroop Singh did not get a favourable response
from the HR Department of Emirates Airlines, both
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha sent him a complaint from MDLR Airlines
to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon from the email ID of
ramkumar@gmail.com and this complaint was produced
by Chanshivroop Singh before the Emirates Airlines and
Chanshivroop Singh also met Mr.Shirish Thorat, who was
working in Emirates Airlines in the capacity of Head of
Investigation and Security Group. Thereafter,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Chanshivroop Singh handed over the copy of the
complaint alongwith his authorization and in the
complaint, there were allegations of commission of fraud
and creation of fake and false experience certificates as
well as taking away of some documents and laptop of the
company.
16. During the course of investigation, the complaint
made to SHO, PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon was enquired and
no such complaint was lodged, which shows that the
complaint was forged, in order to get deceased Geetika
Sharma removed from the Emirates Airlines. Thereafter,
Mr.Shirish Thorat had enquired about the issuance of NOC
from Sh.Rajiv Parasher, who denied having issued the
same and further, an email dated 10.08.2010 was sent by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Mr.Shirish Thorat
wherein again allegations of fake documents being
presented by deceased Geetika Sharma were reiterated.
17. It also came on record during investigation that
thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from
Emirates Airlines on 11.08.2010 and returned to India on
24.08.2010. In the aforementioned manner, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda created circumstances that forced
deceased Geetika Sharma to quit her respectable job with a
highly reputed Airlines and return to India.
18. During the course of investigation, it further came
on record that despite deceased Geetika Sharma's
resignation from Emirates Airlines, she was reluctant to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
join MDLR Airlines immediately. Thereafter, to put further
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to join MDLR
Airlines, forged email dated 01.10.2010 was sent to
deceased Geetika Sharma allegedly by the Director of
Emirates Group threatening to extradite deceased Geetika
Sharma to Dubai with regard to some pending cases. This
email also had an attachment of forged order of Dubai
Court dated 13.09.2010. The deceased Geetika Sharma had
also prepared a draft complaint against accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda wherein she expressed her apprehension that
she was being harassed with the sole purpose of
compelling her to join MDLR, from where she had
resigned and all the incidences were concocted just to
compel her to bow down before the illegal and lustful
wishes of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
19. During the course of investigation, it further came
on record that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sent
email to deceased Geetika Sharma from his email ID
gopalgoyal29@gmail.com on 06.10.2010 and 14.10.2010
to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to
compromise the matter pending in Goa registered vide FIR
No. 244/09 under Section 380/506/34 IPC lodged against
Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh. The deceased Geetika
Sharma was forced to sign an application to compound the
aforementioned FIR, which was filed in the court of
Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, Goa. However, the application
was dismissed on 11.04.2012.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
20. It also came on record during investigation, in the
light of statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
namely Smt.Anuradha Sharma, that in December, 2010,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith his family
members came to the residence of deceased Geetika
Sharma and apologized to the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma for his mis-conduct with the deceased Geetika
Sharma and also offered appointment of deceased Geetika
Sharma as a Director with a salary of Rs.60,000/-per
month. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined
MDLR as a Director on 13.01.2011 and resigned in
December, 2011 from MDLR and had stopped going to the
office of MDLR. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda offered to appoint deceased Geetika Sharma as the
President of Sundale Educational Society, which was
running a school in Gurgaon.
21. During the course of custodial remand of accused A-
2 Aruna Chadha, various documents pertaining to Sundale
Educational Society were seized from the office of MDLR
Airlines Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana and in the documents
recovered of Sundale Educational Society, name of
deceased Geetika Sharma was shown as the President and
the Chairman of Sundale Educational Society i.e.
Mahender Pal, had addressed a letter to the Registrar of
Societies, Patparganj, Industrial Area for changing the
governing body of Sundale Educational Society. An
affidavit of deceased Geetika Sharma as President of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sundale Educational Society was also recovered, which
was duly notarized. However, on examination of notary
public S.Gupta, he denied his signature or the stamp made
on the said affidavit which further shows that affidavit was
forged. From the documents so recovered, it was apparent
that a deal was under consideration to purchase the school
run by Sundale Educational Society from one Batush Pal,
son of Sh.Mahender Pal through one Aditya Mangla
appointed to strike a deal on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda.
22. It also came in the investigation that accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda had also purchased a flat bearing
no.2C, Pocket B, Block-11, Ashok Vihar, Ph-III, Delhi,
near deceased Geetika Sharma's residence in the name of
his daughter Ms.Sushila Goyal to open the office of
Sundale Educational Society.
23. It also came in the investigation that co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha, at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda, had accompanied deceased Geetika Sharma to the
clinic of Ms.Vishakha Munjal, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
for her abortion. This fact was confirmed by Dr.Vishakha
Munjal, who had also provided the details of the visit of
deceased Geetika Sharma accompanied by accused A-2
Aruna Chadha, in her statement recorded during the course
of investigation.
24. It has also come during the investigation that father
of deceased Geetika Sharma had purchased a flat from
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Universal Builders, Gurgaon and payment of amount of
Rs.18 Lacs was made on different dates from his account
and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda using his influence,
had got cancelled the booking of flat by father of deceased
Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012, just to put pressure upon
deceased Geetika Sharma.
25. It has also come in the investigation that co-accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha was pressurizing deceased Geetika
Sharma to rejoin MDLR office by way of telephonic calls
and emails but when deceased Geetika Sharma refused to
join the MDLR Airlines and showed interest to pursue
MBA, then MDLR Group had sponsored the fees of
Rs.7.50 Lacs for MBA Course at IILM, Lodhi Road.
26. It further came in the investigation that on
03.08.2012, Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the lawyer of
MDLR Group, had called up deceased Geetika Sharma and
conveyed to her that she must sign the petition to be filed
before the Mumbai High Court for getting the FIR
No.244/09 PS Panaji, Goa quashed. This pressure was
being exerted upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to get
FIR quashed as one of the accused was Ankita Singh, with
whom accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had illicit relations
and had a biological daughter as alleged by deceased
Geetika Sharma in her suicide note.
27. It further came in the investigation that on
03.08.2012, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had a
telephonic conversation with the mother of deceased
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Geetika Sharma and during the course of telephonic
conversation, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha levelled
allegations about the character of deceased Geetika
Sharma and also told the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma that either deceased Geetika Sharma should resign
or sign the documents of Sundale Educational Society and
also return the admission fees of IILM immediately.
28. It further came in the investigation that mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma became highly upset after
listening to the allegations made by co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and had accordingly, called accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 but he did not respond.
However, after sometime, accused A-1 had called deceased
Geetika Sharma’s mother and during the course of
conversation, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda reiterated
the allegations of character of deceased Geetika Sharma
and he also threatened to lodge FIR at Gurgaon Police
Station against deceased Geetika Sharma in case deceased
Geetika Sharma did not join MDLR again.
29. After the deceased Geetika Sharma returned to
Delhi from Mumbai on 04.08.2012, deceased Geetika
Sharma’s mother narrated allegations levelled by accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha about the character of deceased Geetika Sharma
etc. and after hearing the same, deceased Geetika Sharma
became depressed and thereafter, she committed suicide on
the intervening night of 04-05/08/2012.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
30. Based upon the statement of witnesses, documentary
evidence and the electronic evidence in the form of emails,
messages etc., it was concluded in the chargesheet that
deceased Geetika Sharma had undergone a traumatic
experience of going through an abortion. She was also
facing false allegations of forgery, cheating and fraud due
to which she was forced to resign from Emirates Airlines.
Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was
threatening mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to get FIR
registered at Gurgaon Police Station and was forcing
deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the documents of
Sundale Educational Society and to compound the case at
Goa. Due to the aforementioned facts, deceased Geetika
Sharma had become extremely stressed and depressed and
chose to end her life by hanging herself. Accordingly, a
chargesheet was filed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha for having
committed the offence under Section 120-B r/w
306/506/201/466/467/468/469/471/34 IPC and 66A IT Act
reserving the right to file further investigation report with
regard to role of Chanshivroop Singh and to file the FSL
result with regard to electronic evidence in the form of
supplementary chargesheet.
31. During the course of further investigation, the role
of accused Chanshivroop Singh was investigated and since
it had come on record that Chanshivroop Singh, being the
Assistant HR Manager in MDLR Group was sent to Dubai
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha, to compel deceased Geetika Sharma to
resign and in the said process, had handed over a false
complaint made to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon against
deceased Geetika Sharma at the HR Department of
Emirates Airlines and further created fake email ID
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com from which an email was
sent to deceased Geetika Sharma with the threat of
extradition alongwith forged order of the Dubai Court.
After sufficient material had come on record, accused
Chanshivroop Singh was asked to join the investigation
and after interrogation, he was arrested for the offence
punishable under Section 471 IPC and 66A IT Act and was
released on bail, as the offences were bailable in nature.
32. Sh.Harminder Singh, father of accused
Chanshivroop Singh stood as surety for him. Thereafter, on
31.10.2012, accused Chanshivroop Singh had filed an
application under Section 306 Cr.P.C. for grant of pardon
in the court of Sh.Devender Kumar Jangala, the then
Ld.ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi and to ascertain his
willingness to make true disclosure of facts in his
knowledge, his confessional statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.11.2012 and after recording the
confessional statement of accused Chanshivroop Singh, his
application for grant of pardon was fixed on 30.11.2012
but on that date, accused Chanshivroop Singh did not turn
up.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
33. During the course of further investigation, it came
on record that co-accused Chanshivroop Singh had fled to
U.S.A. on 27.11.2012 and his surety i.e. Sh.Harminder
Singh and his other family members had helped him in
fleeing from this country and surety Sh.Harminder Singh
had made a wrong submission before the court that he is
no longer in contact with his son. Further, the CDR of
mobile phone of surety Sh.Harminder Singh was obtained
during the course of further investigation and it was
revealed from its analysis that he was in constant touch
with one person namely, Vishnu Tantiya, who was the
close aid and relative of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
34. Based upon the aforementioned further
investigation, first supplementary chargesheet was filed
against co-accused Chanshivroop Singh for the offence
under Section 471 IPC and under Section 66A IT Act.
35. After filing of the first supplementary chargesheet,
summons were issued to co-accused Chanshivroop Singh
but he did not appear and thereafter, coercive process was
issued against him but co-accused Chanshivroop Singh
chose to evade the process of the court. Accordingly,
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him
and after completion of requisite formalities, co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh was declared an absconder vide order
dated 07.05.2013.
36. During the course of further investigation, expert
opinion of the Document Division of FSL, Rohini, Delhi
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
on the suicide note and alleged NOC issued by MDLR
Airlines to deceased Geetika Sharma was received
alongwith report from FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the two SIM
Cards of deceased Geetika Sharma as well as the expert
opinion from the Computer Forensic Unit, CFSL,
Hyderabad. The handwriting expert after examining the
admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and the
questioned handwriting and signatures appearing on the
suicide note, had opined that suicide note was in the
handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma.
37. With regard to the alleged NOC issued by MDLR
Airlines in favour of deceased Geetika Sharma, the
handwriting expert after examining the questioned
signatures on the "No Objection Certificate" with the
admitted and specimen handwriting of Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher and Sh.Monal Sachdeva, came to the conclusion
that questioned signatures on the NOC were not that of
Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher or of Sh.Monal Sachdeva.
38. Further, the FSL report received from FSL, Rohini,
Delhi had retrieved data from one of the SIM card marked
as SC-2 and on analyzing the said retrieved data, it was
found that one Sh.Sanjay Bansal had sent two sms
messages on 29.07.2010 to deceased when she was in
Dubai. In both the text messages, Sh.Sanjay Bansal was
requesting deceased Geetika Sharma to meet and resolve
the issue and had further communicated on behalf of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda regarding his condition of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
having sleepless nights and his willingness to leave power,
money etc.
39. The details of the mobile no.9811009998, from
which the aforesaid two messages were sent to deceased
Geetika Sharma, were obtained from the mobile service
provider and travel documents of Sh.Sanjay Bansal were
also obtained and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
was recorded. In his statement, Sh.Sanjay Bansal had
stated that in the month of July/August, 2010, he had
accompanied accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Dubai
and at his instance, he had sent aforesaid two text
messages to deceased Geetika Sharma on her mobile
phone. Further, the data retrieved from the Computer
Forensic Unit, CFSL, Hyderabad showed that deceased
Geetika Sharma had sent one message to Ms.Khushboo on
27.07.2012 wherein deceased Geetika Sharma is seen
making complaint to Ms.Khushboo regarding some lady
questioning her character, which was corroborated by the
phone call dated 03.08.2012 made by co-accused Aruna
Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma,
wherein she had levelled allegations regarding the
character of deceased Geetika Sharma.
40. Further, the data retrieved also had one sms sent to
deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda from his mobile no. 987320002 asking deceased
Geetika Sharma to sign some school papers which further
corroborated the fact that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
was putting pressure upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to
sign Sundale Educational Society papers, which deceased
Geetika Sharma was not willing to sign.
41. Further, one email dated 01.03.2012 sent by accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to deceased Geetika Sharma was
also retrieved and was made a part of the FSL report by
CFSL, Hyderabad. The second supplementary chargesheet
further reserved the right to file execution report with
regard to two Letter Rogatories sent to U.A.E.
42. Thereafter, fourth supplementary chargesheet was
filed with regard to execution report received on Letter
Rogatory issued to U.A.E. seeking information from the
Government of U.A.E. regarding employment of deceased
Geetika Sharma with Emirates, date of salary, date of
joining, date of leaving the job, reasons for resignation,
whether inquiry was conducted by Emirates and whether
accused persons had visited residence of deceased Geetika
Sharma in Dubai and whether Sheikh Bhasir Al Bhoram
was the Director of Emirates or not etc.
43. In the execution report with regard to
aforementioned Letter Rogatory, the information supplied
by Emirates alongwith documents was received through
the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi and the same was filed
on record. However, the execution report with regard to
Additional Letter Rogatory sent to the Government of
U.A.E. seeking information from the Dubai authorities as
to whether any criminal case is pending against deceased
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Geetika Sharma or not and whether any order has been
delivered by the Judge Hasan Abdul Aziz Masnad in 2010,
was not filed as execution report was still awaited at the
time of filing the fourth supplementary chargesheet.
44. Thereafter, during the course of trial, execution
report regarding Additional Letter Rogatory as
aforementioned was received wherein it was informed by
the Government of U.A.E. that there is no criminal case
registered against deceased Geetika Sharma and there was
no order passed by the judge namely Hasan Abdul Aziz
Masnad and even he was not appointed as a judge in 2010.
45. After the filing of chargesheet and additional
chargesheets as discussed hereinabove, copy was supplied
to both accused persons and after compliance of Section
204 Cr.P.C., matter was posted for arguments on the point
of charge.
CHARGE
46. The Ld.Predecessor of this court, after hearing
arguments on the point of charge and after perusing the
matter on record, had vide order dated 10.05.2013 directed
for framing of charge against accused persons for the
offence under Section 120-B IPC, 466/471/468/469/306
IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act, 2000).
Further, against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, charge
of 376/377 IPC was also ordered to be framed and against
co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, charge under Section 376
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
r/w 109 IPC and 377 r/w 109 IPC was also ordered to be
framed and accordingly, charge was also framed.
47. Thereafter, accused persons had challenged the
order of framing of charge before the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order
dated 25.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.
305/2013 had directed for dropping of charge for the
offence under Section 376/377 IPC against accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and 376/377 r/w 109 IPC against co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
48. Pursuant to the receipt of the order dated 25.07.2013
of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, charge was amended
on 06.12.2013 and vide the amended charge, both accused
persons were charged for the offence under Section 120-B
IPC r/w 466/471/468/469 and 66 IT, 2000 and Section 306
IPC r/w 120-B IPC to which accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE
49. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution
evidence. Prosecution in order to prove the aforementioned
charges, had examined in total 65 witnesses.
50. PW-7 ASI Hari Kishan was on PCR duty on
05.08.2012 and he had deposed that on receipt of the call
regarding commission of suicide by a girl at Ashok Vihar,
Phase-III, Delhi, he had reached at the spot where he found
one girl lying dead on a bed in a room and one chunni was
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
lying on the bed. The mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
informed him that deceased Geetika Sharma had
committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan with the
help of chunni and he also observed ligature mark on the
neck of deceased Geetika Sharma.
51. PW-2 HC Rajender Singh was posted as Head
Constable at PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on
05.08.2012, he reached at the spot alongwith Inspector
Dinesh Kumar, after receiving a call regarding commission
of a suicide by a girl. He further deposed that when they
reached at the spot, PCR officials were already there and
he also found dead body of a female lying on the bed and
name of the deceased was revealed as Geetika Sharma and
on a stool adjacent to the bed, one diary of black colour,
Spiral Bound was lying containing the suicide notes. PW-2
further deposed that the said diary was seized by Inspector
Dinesh Kumar and statement of mother of deceased was
recorded. He further deposed that after preparing of rukka,
he had taken the same to the police station and on the basis
of rukka, he got FIR registered and thereafter, he came
back alongwith both documents i.e. i.e. rukka and FIR and
handed over the same to Inspector Dinesh Kumar.
52. PW-3 HC Raj Pal was posted as duty officer on
05.08.2012 at PS Bharat Nagar and he deposed regarding
receipt of information at 9.20 a.m. regarding commission
of suicide by a girl at Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, which
was reduced by him into writing vide DD No.8A
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 further deposed that at about 12.40
p.m., he received a rukka through HC Rajinder, on the
basis of which FIR Ex.PW3/B was recorded by him on
his computer and he also made endorsement on the rukka
vide Ex.PW3/C and thereafter, the same was handed over
to HC Rajinder.
53. PW-20 Inspector Sanjiv was the Incharge, Mobile
Crime Team, North West District and he deposed that on
05.08.2012, on receipt of a call from Control Room, he
alongwith his crime team had reached Ashok Vihar, Phase-
III, Delhi, where he met ASI Jagbir and other police staff.
He further deposed that he got the crime scene inspected
and photographs were also taken by Ct.Parvinder and
thereafter, he prepared his report Ex.PW20/1.
54. PW-5 Ct.Parvinder was posted as Photographer in
Mobile Crime Team and he deposed that he alongwith SI
Sanjeev Verma, reached at the spot and thereafter, he had
taken 27 photographs of the scene of the crime, which
were exhibited as Ex.PW5/A1 to A27 and the CD is
Ex.PW5/B.
55. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh was posted on emergency duty
from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 05.08.2012 and he has
deposed that on receiving the DD No. 8A at 9.20 a.m.,
they had reached at the place of commission of offence i.e.
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi where they had found police
officials i.e. SHO, HC Rajinder, Inspector Dinesh Kumar,
PCR staff at the spot and dead body of a female lying on a
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
bed in a room and also observed that one black colour
spiral diary lying on the small table near bed, which was
having two suicide notes. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh further deposed
that Inspector Dinesh Kumar took the diary in the police
possession and he on the instructions of Inspector Dinesh
took the dead body to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and
thereafter, dead body was shifted to Maulana Azad
Medical College (MAMC) Hospital on 06.08.2012, where
postmortem was conducted. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh further
deposed that ASI Jagbir had conducted the inquest
proceedings and after the postmortem, the dead body was
handed over to the father and the brother of the deceased.
56. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh was posted as SI, PS
Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on 05.08.2012, on
receiving DD No. 8A, he alongwith ATO, had reached at
the spot where they came to know that a girl had
committed suicide due to torture by accused persons and
one suicide note was found written on both sides having
different dates i.e. 05.08.2012 and 04.05.2012, which was
seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C. He also deposed regarding
the arrival of Crime Team and shifting of body to BJRM
Mortuary and recording of statement of Ms.Anuradha
Sharma by Inspector Dinesh Kumar and thereafter, sending
of rukka to PS Bharat Nagar. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh also
deposed regarding seizing of chunni vide memo
Ex.PW8/A, spiral diary vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B,
mobile phone make “Apple” and laptop make "ACER" of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased vide memo Ex.PW8/D, stool lying near bed
vide memo Ex.PW8/E, one diary black colour containing
the admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma
vide memo Ex.PW8/F and they all bear his signatures at
point "A". PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh further deposed that he
had prepared the brief facts vide Ex.PW8/G and he also
made request for preserving the dead body of deceased at
BJRM Hospital vide application Ex.PW8/H and he also
deposed that after getting the post mortem conducted on
06.08.2012, dead body of deceased was handed over to the
father of deceased.
57. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh further deposed that after
postmortem, he was handed over six sealed pullandas by
the doctor, which were seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW8/J and videography of the post mortem recorded
in a cassette was also seized by him vide seizure memo
Ex.PW8/K and after returning to the PS, all the exhibits
were deposited in the police Malkhana.
58. PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. was the Associate
Professor, Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical
College, New Delhi and he has deposed on oath that
pursuant to order passed by GNCT of Delhi Ex.PW1/A, a
Medical Board was constituted on 06.08.2012 of which he
was the Chairman for the purpose of conducting post
mortem of deceased. PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. further
deposed that after identification of the dead body by the
father and brother, post mortem was conducted of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased and a report Ex.PW1/B was prepared, which
was duly signed by other Board Members namely,
Dr.Mumtaz Khan, Dr.vijay Dhankar and Dr.Bhim Singh. It
was further deposed by PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. that as per
their opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to
hanging, which is duly mentioned in post mortem report
Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that after post mortem, five
exhibits as per description given in the post mortem report
was handed over to Inspector Rajender Prasad.
59. PW-6 Constable Kuldeep Singh was posted as
Constable at PS Bharat Nagar, and he has deposed that on
07.08.2012, he had collected exhibits from the police
Malkhana vide Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and he
deposited the same in FSL, Rohini against receipts
Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. PW-6 Constable Kuldeep
Singh further deposed that on 25.09.2012, on the
instructions of IO, he again collected eight sealed parcels
and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini against receipts
Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F.
60. PW-9 Ms.Jyoti Sharma has deposed on oath that
deceased was daughter of his brother-in-law (Devar) and
she further deposed that Advocate S.S.Katyal was known
to her because she was dealing with the cases of Punjab
National Bank, where she was employed. PW-9 Ms.Jyoti
Sharma further deposed that after deceased returned from
Dubai in the year 2010, then she alongwith deceased had
gone to the office of Sh.S.S.Katyal, where deceased got
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
typed one complaint addressed to Sh.Sanjay Verma marked
as PW9/A on the instructions of deceased.
61. PW-10 Sh.Deepak Jindal has deposed that he had
worked in MDLR company, Gurgaon in the year 2005 for
about 11/2 year. PW-10 Sh.Deepak Jindal had further
deposed that mobile phone no.9873200002 was got issued
in his name but thereafter, he had handed over the said
SIM to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. PW-10
Sh.Deepak Jindal further deposed that in the year 2010, the
ownership of the said SIM was changed from his name to
MDLR Tours and Travels and he further deposed that
during the course of investigation, his statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded vide Ex.PW10/A.
62. PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma was the cousin of
deceased and he had deposed on oath that on 03.08.2012,
he alongwith deceased had gone to Mumbai by Air to
attend the Fashion Show of Ankit Sharma, the real brother
of deceased. PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma further deposed
that after completion of Fashion Show, he alongwith
deceased reached at the Mumbai Airport to catch the return
flight on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. and when they
were waiting for flight, then at about 7.30 or 7.45 p.m.,
deceased received a telephonic call and after receiving the
same, she appeared to be a bit stressed. It was further
deposed by PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma that due to deceased
continued conversation on the telephone, they missed their
flight and later on, when he enquired from deceased, she
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
told that call was from Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, a lawyer of
MDLR Group, who was talking about some case pending
at Goa. It was further deposed by PW-11 Sh.Gaurav
Sharma that he and deceased spent the night at Mumbai
Airport and thereafter, returned to Delhi by the morning
flight on 04.08.2012 vide ticket Ex.P1.
63. In the present case, it was the deceased’s mother
Ms.Anuradha Sharma, who had got the present case
registered and during the course of investigation, her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.
However, unfortunately during the pendency of this case,
Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased had expired
and therefore, she could not be examined as a witness.
However, brother of deceased Sh.Ankit Sharma and father
of deceased Sh.Dinesh Sharma were examined as PW-12
and PW-13 respectively.
64. It has come in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit
Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that deceased was
selected as trainee Cabin Crew in MDLR Airlines in 2006,
of which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the
Chairman and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was the
Manager, HR and deceased was promoted as Senior Cabin
Crew in the year 2008 and after the stoppage of operations
of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. in April, 2009, deceased was
appointed as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group and later on,
was transferred to MDLR Hotels and was assigned the job
of supervising the renovation work of Casino at Goa. PW-
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma had
further deposed that at Goa, deceased had dispute with her
co-employees namely Ms.Ankita Singh and Ms.Nupur
Mehta, who were working in the same Casino as they were
pressurizing deceased not to work in the Casino and not to
visit Goa and thereafter, when the aforementioned two
girls had snatched the mobile phone and laptop of
deceased, then she had got the FIR lodged against said two
girls at Goa. Thereafter, deceased had returned to Delhi in
August/September, 2009 but did not join MDLR Airlines
and pursued her graduation. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and
PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that deceased
was having two mobile numbers. The number 8447000013
was her official mobile phone number and mobile no.
9013347100 was her personal number. It has further come
in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13
Sh.Dinesh Sharma that in the month of October, 2009,
deceased again started going to the office of MDLR due to
constant pressure put upon by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and due to assurance given by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda that deceased will not be sent to Goa again.
65. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh
Sharma further deposed that deceased resigned from
MDLR in the month of May, 2010 and joined Emirates
Airlines in June, 2010 at Dubai. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma
and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was not issuing the NOC
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and when he was out of country, deceased had applied for
NOC,which was provided to the deceased by Monal
Sachdeva, employee of MDLR by posting the same at the
residence of deceased. Based upon this NOC, deceased had
joined Emirates Airlines at Dubai on 26.06.2010. It has
further come in the evidence of PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma
that thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called
the mother of deceased and told her that deceased should
be called back from Dubai, as it is not a good country.
Sharma further deposed that during the deceased stay at
Dubai, both accused persons used to call deceased at her
mobile number as well as on her landline number asking
deceased to quit Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR and
since deceased did not accede to their request, therefore,
both accused persons had visited Dubai on one occasion
and on the other occasion, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had alone visited Dubai.
67. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma
and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda also tried to meet deceased on the pretext
that he was her uncle at the place where she was staying
but he was not allowed entry into the building by the
security guard. It was further deposed to by PW-12
Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that at the
instance of both accused persons, deceased had met them
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
in Cafeteria in Dubai, where they again convinced
deceased to rejoin MDLR.
68. It was further deposed to by PW-12 Sh.Ankit
Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after both
accused had returned from Dubai, deceased had received
information from the Emirates Airlines that her previous
employer had certain objections regarding the genuineness
of the NOC and even a complaint lodged by MDLR with
SHO, PS Gurgaon was shown to deceased. It was further
deposed to by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13
Sh.Dinesh Sharma that Emirates Airlines had told deceased
that her previous employer had alleged that NOC is forged
and, therefore, deceased had resigned from the Emirates
Airlines on 12.08.2010 and had returned to India on
24.08.2010. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit
Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after returning
from Dubai, deceased stayed at her house for 2-3 months
and during this period, deceased received an email
whereby she was threatened to be extradited to Dubai with
regard to some money dispute.
Sharma further deposed that in the month of December,
2010, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had visited the house
of deceased and pressurized her to rejoin MDLR after
persuading deceased to forget what happened in the past. It
was further deposed by them that in the month of
December, 2010, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
wife visited deceased’s house and mother of deceased had
complained to them regarding the trouble created by them
at the work place of deceased in Dubai, due to which she
had to resign and thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had apologized the mother of deceased and also
assured not to repeat such actions in future and in order to
gain the confidence, had provided two NOCs.
70. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed regarding
traveling alongwith his wife and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and his wife to Goa to attend the court case and
thereafter, to Shirdi. Thereafter, deceased had rejoined
MDLR and remained in their employment till December,
2011. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma
and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after deceased had left
the job in December, 2011, deceased was offered to be a
part of the Society that has been formed to run a school
and even deceased accompanied co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha on one or two occasions for the work of Society
school.
Sharma further deposed regarding deposition of fee by the
MDLR Group for the MBA course, which was being
pursued by deceased from IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and
PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that about 15-20 days prior to
death of deceased, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
called deceased and was putting pressure upon the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased to come to the office of the MDLR to sign some
papers. However, deceased told co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha, not to call her again and refused to sign on the
documents. It has further come in the evidence of PW-12
Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that on
03.08.2012, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called up
the mother of deceased and had requested her to send
deceased to sign documents failing which matter will be
reported to the Haryana Police.
72. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma further deposed regarding
the pressure being put upon by Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia on
deceased to sign some documents in connection with the
case pending at Goa when Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia called up
deceased on 03.08.2012. It was further deposed by PW-13
Sh.Dinesh Sharma that when deceased returned from
Mumbai on 04.08.2012, her mother had told her that co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called her and had asked
deceased to sign some documents failing which deceased
would be arrested and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
also told the mother of deceased that allegations made by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda regarding character of
deceased were true. It has further come in their evidence
that after hearing the conversation, deceased insisted her
mother to call accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda but he did
not pick up the call. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had called mother of deceased, in which he again
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
instructed to send deceased to sign some papers failing
which deceased would be arrested.
73. The entire conversation which took place between
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and mother of deceased
was narrated to deceased and after hearing the same,
deceased had become stressed and did not speak to anyone
through out the day.
74. It has further come in the evidence of PW-12
Sh.Ankit Sharma that he received a call from deceased on
the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012 at about 1.15 a.m.
wherein deceased was sounding disturbed and told PW-12
Sh.Ankit Sharma that accused persons are putting pressure
upon her to come to the office of MDLR to sign some
papers.
75. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that in
the morning of 05.08.2012, he found that her daughter had
committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan. PW-13
Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed regarding seizing of
mobile phone, laptop of deceased, spiral diary, spiral
notebook having handwriting of deceased and a stool lying
in the room in his presence. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma
also identified the complaint made by his wife
Ex.PW13/D. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma also deposed
regarding he and his wife giving statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F respectively.
PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma deposed regarding handwriting of
suicide notes being that of deceased and had handed over
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
all documents of employment of Emirates, MDLR, print
outs of emails etc. to the police during the course of
investigation and the two SIM Cards used by deceased
during her employment at Emirates etc.
76. PW-14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma was working in the
MDLR in the year 2011 as General Manager (Admn.).
PW-14 Ms.Khushboo had deposed regarding rejoining of
deceased as Director in the MDLR Company in 2011 and
further deposed that when she left services, she had handed
over all the articles belonging to the company vide
document Ex.PW14/B.
77. PW-15 Sh.Surender Kumar was the businessman
and he had joined the investigation on 20.08.2012 with IO
Inspector Rajender and at that point of time, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda was in police custody. He further
deposed regarding the fact of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda taking the police to the Farm House by the name of
Shanti Kunj at Gurgaon, Faridabad Road and from the first
floor, he had got recovered some documents regarding the
property and the said search proceedings were also
videographed. PW-15 Sh.Surender Kumar had identified
the seizure memo as Ex.PW15/A and identified the
documents, which were recovered in his presence as
Ex.PW15/B (colly).
78. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh was working as a peon
in the MDLR, after having joined the same in the year
2008. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh had deposed that he had
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
got a mobile no.8860000029 issued in his name and he
was using the said number. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh
further deposed that he had got his statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW16/A. Since PW16
Sh.Mandeep Singh had not supported the prosecution case
that the aforesaid mobile number was being used by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, as stated by him in his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, he was
cross examined by the Ld.Addl.PP for State and in his
cross examination, he accepted the contents of his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but further stated that
whatever he had stated was done under the pressure made
by the police and it is not his voluntarystatement.
79. PW-17 Sh.Aditya Mangla was in the business of
Real Estates and he deposed that his wife namely
Ms.Khushboo, was working with the MDLR in the year
2012 having her office at Civil Lines, Gurgaon and
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the owner of MDLR
Company. PW-17 Sh.Aditya Mangla deposed that he had
joined the investigation and had provided the print outs of
the emails with respect to M/s. Sundale Educational
Society vide Ex.PW17/B (colly), which were taken into
possession vide Ex.PW17/A.
80. PW-18 is Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was working
as Manager (Legal) in the MDLR Groups since August,
2010. PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia deposed that he had lastly
spoken to deceased on 03.08.2012 telephonically with
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
respect to case, which was registered at Goa. He further
deposed regarding taking into possession his laptop by the
police vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and he further
deposed regarding handing over of documents relating to
case registered at Goa which included an application for
quashing of those proceedings including the orders passed
by the Ld.Magistrate, Goa, which are Ex.PW18/C
(colly).
81. PW-19 Sh.Shiraz Ali was running a travel agency
by the name of Dezire Holidays from Nirmal Tower,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and he deposed that MDLR
group is one of his clients and he was looking after their air
tickets, hotel bookings etc. He further deposed that during
the course of investigation by the police, he had handed
over to them the documents vide his letter Ex.PW19/1
which included the copies of tickets Mark P-19/A.
82. PW-21 is Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, who had
joined MDLR on 06.12.2004 and remained in the said
company till 07.11.2009 and rejoined the said company
again on 15.06.2010 and continued there till 31.03.2013.
He further deposed that he joined the company as a
General Manager and left as Senior Vice President in 2009
to again rejoin as Chief Operating Officer in 2010. PW-21
Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher further deposed that deceased
had joined service in MDLR in 2006 and MDLR started
operating in Aviation business in March, 2007. PW-21
Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher identified the letter dated
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
18.10.2006, receipt dated 18.10.2006, letter dated
28.08.2008, letter dated 31.03.2009 and letter dated
30.06.2009 which were part of documents Ex.PW13/A1
to Ex.PW13/A20. However, PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher denied that NOC having signatures at Mark Q-9
are his signatures. PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher further
admitted that Mark S-1 to S-7 are his specimen signatures.
PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher also deposed that
deceased might have joined MDLR in the end of 2010 or
January, 2011 and he has seen her attending the office till
2012.
83. PW-22 is Inspector O.P.Shrivastva, who was
posted in Cyber Lab, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New
Delhi. PW-22 Inspector O.P.Shrivastva deposed that during
the course of investigation, SI Dinesh produced a laptop
and mobile phone duly sealed and after de-sealing the
same, he had prepared mirror copy of laptop and mobile
phone using forensic tools and mirror images were handed
over to the IO alongwith mobile phone and laptop.
84. PW-23 was Inspector Pankaj Singh but he was
dropped on the request of Ld.Addl.PP for State as his
testimony was of repetitive nature.
85. PW-24 SI Pradeep Chhabra was also posted in
Cyber Lab, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and he deposed that
on 06.08.2012, Inspector O.P.Shrivastva i.e. PW-22 handed
over to him one laptop make “Acer” and one mobile phone
make “Apple” and thereafter, he prepared mirror image of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
the laptop after taking out the hard disc and data stored in
the mobile phone was retrieved and converted into a
pendrive and was handed over to the IO. PW-24 SI
Pradeep Chhabra further deposed about the preparation of
mirror image of hard disc of Apple Laptop on 08.08.2012
at the house of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
86. PW-25 Lady Constable Neha deposed that on
08.08.2012, she was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and on that
date, she had joined investigation with Inspector Rajender
Prasad. PW-25 Lady Ct. Neha deposed regarding arrest of
co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha at PS Keshav Puram,
identified her signatures on the arrest memo, body
inspection memo of co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and her
personal search memo vide Ex.PW25/1, Ex.PW25/2 and
Ex.PW25/3 respectively.
87. PW-26 is Lady Constable Ram Pyari, who was
posted in the year 2012 at PS Bharat Nagar. PW-26 Lady
Ct.Ram Pyari had deposed that on the directions of the IO
Inspector Rajender Singh, she joined investigation and as
per the disclosure made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
while in custody, they had gone to the clinic of
Dr.Vishakha Munjal in the area of Lajpat Nagar where the
clinic was found closed and thereafter, at the residence,
Ms.Vishakha Munjal met and produced some documents
and a diary regarding the treatment of deceased, which
were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B.
She further deposed that thereafter, they had gone to the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
office of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. at Gurgaon and at the
instance of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, some documents
were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW26/C and
Ex.PW26/D.
88. PW-27 is Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was
working as Company Secretary from 2010 till 30.11.2012,
had deposed that during his tenure, deceased was
appointed as one of the Directors of the company in 2011
and she regularly attended the office till April, 2012. PW-
27 Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma further deposed that on
12.08.2012, he joined the investigation of this case and
documents regarding the appointment of Directors
Ex.PW27/A (colly) were seized by the police vide
seizure memo Ex.PW26/C and some other documents,
which were in his possession, were also seized on that day.
89. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal was the panel advocate of
Punjab National Bank and was having his office at A-53,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal
had deposed that he knew Ms.Jyoti being employee of
Punjab National Bank. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal further
deposed that in the year 2012, police had contacted him
during the investigation of this case and had enquired
about one unsigned reply which PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal
admitted to have been drafted by him in his office on the
instructions of a lady, who had come alongwith Ms.Jyoti.
PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal further deposed that he had given a
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
copy of reply Ex.PW28/A from his computer system to
the police.
90. PW-29 is Constable Rajinder, who was posted at
PS Bharat Nagar as Constable and he had deposed that on
08.08.2012, on the instructions of inspector Dinesh Kumar,
he had collected six sealed parcels from MHCM PS Bharat
Nagar and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini against
receipt.
91. PW-30 is Sh.Batush Pal, who was the member of
Sundale Educational Society, which was running a school
by the name of Pumpkin School at Sohna Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana. PW-30 Sh.Batush Pal deposed that in the year
2012, his friend namely Sh.Aditya Mangla had proposed to
him that his wife wants to run a school and if PW-30
Batush Pal and his wife are desirous of selling the school,
then Sh.Aditya Mangla can think of buying the same. He
further deposed that thereafter, they decided to transfer the
school to Sh.Aditya Mangla and accordingly, documents
were executed and a part payment through cheque was also
received, which was later on got dishonoured.
92. PW-30 Sh.Batush Pal further deposed that when he
confronted Sh.Aditya Mangla about dishonourment of
cheque, then it was disclosed to him that the
aforementioned school was purchased by him for some
other person and from the documents, he came to know
that Sh.Aditya Mangla without informing him, had sold the
school to some other person whose names were later on
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
revealed as accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased and
accordingly, deal was cancelled.
93. PW-31 HC Dharmender was posted at PS Bharat
Nagar and on 19.08.2012, he had accompanied accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to BJRM Hospital for his medical
examination and thereafter, in his presence, disclosure
statement of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
Ex.PW31/A was recorded. Thereafter, they had gone to
the office of MDLR, Gurgaon and at the instance of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, one desktop, one CPU
and other electronic devices were seized.
94. PW-32 Ct.Jitendra has deposed that he was posted
at PS Bharat Nagar and on 24.09.2012, on the instructions
of Inspector Dinesh Kumar, he collected three sealed
parcels sealed with the seal of “RP” and had deposited the
same with the FSL, Rohini against receipt and receipt was
deposited with the MHC(M).
95. PW-33 is Sh.Atul Puri, who was the Chartered
Accountant by profession and was known to the family of
deceased for the past 20-25 years. PW-33 Sh.Atul Puri had
deposed regarding receipt of mail from deceased, which
she has received from Dubai and accordingly, PW-33
Sh.Atul Puri had advised deceased to ascertain the
authenticity of the mail from Emirates Airlines and
Ministry of External Affairs. He also produced print out
copies of emails exchanged by him with deceased, which
were exhibited as Ex.PW-33/A.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
96. PW-34 Ms.Anjula Nagpal was the owner of Flat
No.2C, Block-11, Phase 3, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and she had
deposed that on 07.05.2011, she had sold the flat to
Smt.Sushila Goyal vide registered sale deed.
97. PW-35 is Inspector Manohar Lal, who was
posted as Draftsman in North-West District. He had
deposed that on 29.08.2012, he alongwith IO Inspector
Dinesh Kumar had visited Flat No.4-C, 2nd Floor, Pocket-
B, Block-1, Ashok Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi and had taken
measurement at the instance of Inspector Dinesh Kumar
and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.35/A.
98. PW-36 is Dr.Vishakha Munjal, who was
practicing as gynecologist and obstetrician for the past 08
years from her Medi Clinic situated at Part-3, Lajpat
Nagar, Delhi. PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal had deposed that
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was her old patient and in the
month of March, 2012, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
taken telephonic appointment with regard to her friend for
consultation. Thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
come to the clinic of PW-36 on 09.03.2012 and had
informed her that her friend will come to her clinic for
consultation and thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
left. After 10-15 minutes of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
leaving, deceased had come to PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal
for termination of her pregnancy, which was six weeks old
and on inquiry, she apprised that she was unmarried.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
99. PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal had prescribed some
medicines for termination of deceased's pregnancy and her
pregnancy was successfully terminated and deceased
visited clinic of PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal for follow-ups
on 14.05.2012 and 19.06.2012.
100. PW-37 is ASI Surender Kumar, who was posted
as MHC(R) at PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon and he had
deposed that on 26.08.2012, SI Devender Singh of PS
Bharat Nagar had come to PS Gurgaon to make inquiry
regarding the complaint made by M/s.MDLR Airlines Ltd.
on 07.08.2010. He further deposed that as per his record,
there was no complaint received from M/s.MDLR Airlines
Ltd.on 07.08.2010.
101. PW-38 is SI Ajay Kumar, who was posted at PS
Ashok Vihar and he has deposed that on 24.08.2012, on the
instructions of Inspector Dinesh Kumar, he had gone to the
office of Emirates Airlines at Parliament Street, Connaught
Place, New Delhi and from there, he collected a sealed
envelope from Mr.Vinay John, Manager, Emirates, which
was seized by him vide Ex.PW38/A and after his return to
PS Bharat Nagar, he had handed over the same to Inspector
Dinesh Kumar.
102. PW-39 is Constable Darvesh, who was posted at
PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on 07.08.2012,
he had joined the investigation with Inspector Rajender
Prasad and thereafter, had gone to the office of MDLR
Airlines at Gurgaon, Haryana and from there, Sh.Rajiv
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Parasher had handed over certain documents, which were
seized and they also went in search of accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha at her residence but it was found locked. He
further deposed regarding visiting of flat of father of
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha but none was found present
there. He further deposed regarding visiting the house of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and serving notice upon
his wife to join the investigation. It was further deposed
by PW-39 Ct.Darvesh that on 19.08.2012, he again joined
the investigation and at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda, one desktop and one CPU was seized from
MDLR Airlines Gurgaon office. He further deposed
regarding seizing of certain documents from the farm
house in the area of Shantikunj, Gurgaon on 20.08.2012 at
the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and
seizing of one laptop, one desktop and one CPU from
MDLR office, Gurgaon.
103. PW-40 is Sh.Dharmendra Singh, who was posted
as Metropolitan Magistrate, Outer District-07, Delhi. PW-
40 Sh.Dharmendra Singh has deposed regarding recording
of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh.Mandeep
Singh after compliance of formalities.
104. PW-41 is Ct.Balwan Singh, who was posted at PS
Bharat Nagar and he had deposed regarding collecting of
one parcel from PS Bharat Nagar and depositing the same
at CFSL, Hyderabad on 26.09.2012 against receipt, which
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
was deposited by him on his return with MHC (M) PS
Bharat Nagar.
105. PW-42 is Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal, who was the
Nodal Officer at Vodafone Idea Ltd. He had produced the
Customer Agreement Form with respect to mobile no.
9953100000, which was in the name of MDLR Airlines (P)
Ltd., Gurgaon, mobile no. 9873900002, which was in the
name of Dharambir resident of Gurgaon and the mobile no.
9873200002, which was in the name of Deepak resident of
Gurgaon. He had also produced the certified copies of Call
Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 9953100000, mobile
no.9873900002 and mobile no. 9873200002 from
01.01.2012 till 05.08.2012. Further, PW-42 Sh.Saurabh
Aggarwal also produced on record CDR of mobile
no.8860000029 in the name of MDLR Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon,
Haryana, mobile no. 9818625001 in the name of Smt.
Anuradha Sharma, resident of Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi, mobile no. 9868051400 in the name of Ankit
Sharma, resident of Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, mobile
no.9711270009 in the name of MDLR Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon
and mobile no. 8860214200 in the name of
R.K.Vishvkarma, resident of R.K.Puram, New Delhi.
106. PW-43 is Sh.Anurag Sharma, who was working
as Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Rohini, New
Delhi and he had deposed that he had compared the
admitted handwriting and signatures of deceased appearing
on the admitted documents with the questioned signatures
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and handwriting appearing on the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C and thereafter, he had opined that
questioned signatures and handwriting of deceased
appearing in the suicide notes was similar to that of
admitted handwriting and signatures of deceased.
107. PW-43 Sh.Anurag Sharma also deposed regarding
giving up of opinion that signatures appearing on the NOC
at Q-9 were not that of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher or that of
Sh.Monal Sachdeva after comparing their admitted
handwriting and signatures and specimen handwriting.
PW-43 Sh.Anurag Sharma also proved his report in this
regard Ex.PW43/L.
108. PW-44 is Sh.Jagdish Salwan, who was the
Manager, Citi Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and he
has deposed regarding supplying of original Account
Opening Form of Sh.Monal Sachdeva.
109. PW-45 Sh.Surender Kumar was working as Nodal
Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi and he had produced
on record the Customer Application Form of mobile no.
9910110235, which was in the name of Ms.Aruna Dagar
and he also produced the Call Detail Record of said mobile
number.
110. PW-46 is Sh.Vipin Kharab, who was posted as
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi on 08.08.2012.
PW-46 Sh.Vipin Kharab has deposed regarding recording
of statement of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Ex.PW13/E
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after complying with all the
requisite formalities.
111. PW-47 Sh.Vishal Singh was also posted as
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi on
14.08.2012 and he has deposed that on 14.08.2012, he
recorded the statement of Sh.Deepak Jindal Ex.PW10/A
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded statement of Sh.Ankit
Sharma Ex.PW47/G under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on
08.08.2012 and recorded the confessional statement of
absconder accused Chanshivroop Singh on 27.11.2012
(Part of Ex.PW47/K) under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
112. PW-48 is Sh.Sanjay Bansal, who was known to
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. PW-48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal
admitted of having sent two SMS Ex.PW48/A from his
mobile no. 9811101010 to deceased in the year 2010, when
deceased was working in Emirates Airlines in Dubai.
113. PW-49 is Sh.Rakesh Soni, who was working as
Deputy Manager (Store), MTNL, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
and he had brought on record CDR of mobile no.
9013347100 in the name of Ms.Anuradha Sharma.
114. PW-50 is Ms.Vandana, who was posted as
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Rohini, Delhi and
she has deposed that on 08.08.2012, she had recorded the
statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/F under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. after complying with all the requisite
formalities.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
115. PW-51 Sh.CH.E.Sai Prasad was posted as
Assistant Director, CFSL, Hyderabad and he had
conducted the forensic analysis of the mobile phone make
“Apple”, a SIM Card of Service Provider MTNL. After
analysing the aforementioned Apple Phone and the SIM
Card, various data retrieved from the same, was provided
in one DVD vide Ex.PW51/A and he also provided the
hard copy of the relevant data vide his supplementary
report Ex.PW51/C.
116. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan was posted as MHCM at
PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi and he produced Register Nos.19
and 21, which had the entries regarding deposition of case
properties and handing over of the case properties for the
purpose of depositing the same with the FSL.
117. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan had deposed regarding
depositing of one videography cassette on 06.08.2012, one
hard disk make “Hitachi” on 08.08.2012, one laptop,
mobile phone and camera on 10.08.2012, one diary on
12.08.2012, one desktop make Lenovo and CPU on
19.08.2012, one CPU make IBM and Laptop make Sony
VAIO on 20.08.2012, three letter heads and two stamps on
23.08.2012, one ipad make “Apple” on 24.08.2012, one
mobile phone make “Apple” on 28.08.2012, one sealed
parcel containing SIM Cards on 29.08.2012 and one laptop
make Lenovo on 30.08.2012. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan
further deposed that on 06.08.2012, he had handed over
laptop and iphone Apple to IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar for
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
taking the same to Special Cell NDR and on 07.08.2012,
he had handed over documents i.e. suicide note and other
documents to Constable Kuldeep and also laptop, mobile
phone were sent through Constable Kuldeep for depositing
the same to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
118. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan further deposed that on
08.08.2012, six sealed samples were sent to FSL, Rohini
through Constable Rajinder and on 23.09.2012, one iphone
make “Apple” was sent through Constable Balwan to
CFSL, Hyderabad and on 24.09.2012, three sealed parcels
were deposited with FSL, Rohini by Constable Jitender
and on 24.09.2012, two SIM Cards, which were being used
by deceased in Dubai, were sent through Constable
Jitender to FSL, Rohini and on 25.09.2012, eight sealed
parcels were sent through Constable Kuldeep to FSL,
Rohini, Delhi.
119. PW-53 is Inspector Vijay Gahlawat, who was
posted in the year 2012 with Cyber Cell, Economic
Offences Wing (EOW). He has deposed on oath that on
request received from the officials of PS Bharat Nagar
seeking details of e-mail ID i.e.
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com from the concerned service
provider, they had sent a request e-mail to Hotmail, which
had provided the alternative e-mail address i.e.
shivroopbabbar@gmail.com. Accordingly, details were
sought from the Google company regarding registrant and
log details, which had further provided the IP address from
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
which the aforementioned e-mail was created i.e. Hathway
Service Provider, who in turn provided IP Address i.e.
Sector-71, Mohali, Punjab.
120. PW-54 Sh.Sanjay Sharma deposed that in the year
2010, he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, BCAS,
Delhi Regional Office. PW-54 Sh.Sanjay Sharma deposed
that initially Airport Entry Permits were being issued from
BCAS, HQ, Janpath, Delhi but later on, they were shifted
to Regional Office, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi. He further
deposed that he had provided the certified copies of
applications for issuing Airport Entry permit vide
Ex.PW54/A(colly).
121. PW-55 is Dr.Bhim Singh, who was posted as
HOD, Forensic Medicine, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial
Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and was part of the Medical
Board, which had conducted post mortem on the deceased.
He proved his signatures on the post mortem report of
deceased Ex.PW1/B and further deposed regarding death
of deceased due to hanging and regarding providing of
subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW55/B.
122. PW-56 Sh.Om Prakash Parida was posted as
Assistant Director, CBI, New Delhi in the year 2013-2014.
PW-56 Sh.Om Prakash Parida deposed that one letter dated
11.06.2013 of Dr.P.Karunakaran, Deputy Commissioner of
Police, North West District, Delhi was received with a
request for forwarding letter rogatory and additional letter
rogatory to UAE. He further deposed that thereafter, they
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
had sent Letter Rogatory to the Ambassador, Embassy of
India, U.A.E. and thereafter, one execution report with
regard to Letter Rogatory was received and the same was
forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of
Police. North-West, Delhi.
123. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad was posted as
SHO, PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed regarding
reaching at the spot on receiving a PCR call at about 9.20
a.m. on 05.08.2012, regarding commission of a suicide by
the daughter of the caller at Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New
Delhi. He further deposed that at the spot, Inspector
Dinesh Kumar and ASI Jagbir Singh were already present.
He further deposed that dead body of deceased was shifted
to Mortuary and after recording of statement of mother of
deceased, rukka was sent by the Inspector Dinesh Kumar
to the PS for registration of the FIR. He further deposed
regarding the constitution of Medical Board for the post
mortem of deceased. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad
also deposed that after conducting the post mortem by the
Medical Board, he had collected various exhibits from the
Hospital and even the post mortem was got videographed.
PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad further deposed that
during the course of investigation, he had gone to the
office of MDLR, Gurgaon and had seized documents with
regard to appointment of deceased and other employees.
He further deposed regarding the arrest of accused no.2
Aruna Chadha and recording of her disclosure statement.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad further deposed
regarding recording of statement of Sh.Gaurav Sharma,
cousin of deceased and at the instance of accused Aruna
Chadha, seizing of mobile phone make Ericsson, one
digital camera make GI and a Laptop make Lenovo. PW-
57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad also deposed regarding
examining Chanshivroop Singh and going to the clinic of
Dr.Vishakha Munjal, at the instance of accused Aruna
Chadha and recording statement of Dr.Vishakha Munjal
and collecting relevant documents from her possession
regarding the termination of pregnancy of deceased. He
also deposed on oath that at the instance of accused Aruna
Chadha, original documents of Sundale Educational
Society were also seized and further deposed that pursuant
to the dismissal of anticipatory bail application of accused
Gopal Goyal Kanda, he was arrested on 18.08.2012 by IO
Inspector Dinesh Kumar and pursuant to his arrest, at the
instance of accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, from his office at
Gurgaon, one CPU make Lenovo and one CPU, which was
being used by Ms.Khushboo Sharma was seized and
thereafter, from his farm house at Shantikunj, certain
documents were seized. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad
further deposed regarding examination of Sh.Aditya
Mangla and seizing of documents of Sundale Educational
Society from him. He further deposed seizing of ipad of
deceased from the brother of deceased on 24.08.2012 and
recorded the statement of Sh.Ankit Sharma and Constable
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sanjeev. He further deposed that thereafter, investigation
was transferred to Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, Addl.DCP, North-
West, Delhi on the direction of DCP, North-West, Delhi for
conduction of further investigation.
124. PW-58 Sh.B.P.Bagchi was posted as Assistant
Director, CBI, New Delhi. PW-58 Sh.B.P.Baghci has
deposed on oath that vide letter dated 30.06.2016, he had
forwarded the execution report regarding the Additional
Letter Rogatory to Addl.DCP, Delhi Police alongwith
report prepared by Dubai Police vide Ex.PW58/A to D
respectively.
125. PW-59 Sh.S.K.Singh was posted as Addl.Deputy
Commissioner of Police-II, North-West District, Delhi in
2018. PW-59 Sh.S.K.Singh has deposed on oath that he
had filed the report running into two pages regarding
execution of Additional Letter Rogatory received through
the Indian Mission/CBI, Delhi vide Ex.PW59/A
alongwith execution report on Additional Letter Rogatory.
126. PW-60 Inspector Devender Kumar was posted as
Incharge PP Sangam Park of P.S Bharat Nagar. On
26.08.2012, he had gone to P.S. Civil Lines, Gurgaon
regarding inquiry of a complaint dated 07.08.2010 of
MDLR Airlines and as per record of PS Civil Lines,
Gurgaon, no such complaint was received by them. He
further deposed that on 04.12.2012, he alongwith HC
Satish Pal had gone to Chandigarh to make inquiries
regarding Chanshivroop Singh, who had absconded to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
U.S.A. He further deposed that they had made inquiries
from Mr.Rathor of S.K.R.Travels, Sector-35A, Chandigarh
and he told them that Chanshivroop Singh and one
Sudhanshu Karol had purchased tickets from them for
U.S.A. and he further provided the copy of their passports
to them. PW-60 Inspector Devender Kumar had deposed
that he had gone to the addresses as mentioned in the
photocopies of the passports of Sh.Sudhanshu Karol and
Chanshivroop Singh but they were not found available at
their respective addresses.
127. PW-61 is Dr.Narayan Waghmare and he was
posted as Assistant Director at FSL, Rohini in the year
2012. He has deposed on oath that on 07.08.2012, he had
received two parcels having apple iphone with MTNL SIM
Card, one laptop make ACER and on 24.09.2012, he had
received one parcel having two SIM Cards. He further
deposed that he had done the forensic anaylsis of above
mentioned documents and had given his report. He further
deposed that iphone make Apple and SIM Cards could not
be analysed due to analysis facility being not available.
However, data from the laptop and two SIM Cards was
retrived and was provided alongwith report.
128. PW-62 is Sh.Rajeev Ranjan and he was posted as
Addl.DCP-1,North West District, New Delhi in the year
2012. He deposed that on 18.09.2012, this case was
assigned to him for further investigation and after
discussing the case with the previous IO Inspector Dinesh
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Kumar, he had carried out the investigation. PW-62
Sh.Rajeev Ranjan deposed regarding receiving of FSL
result from Rohini alongwith 12 photographs, sending of
iphone of deceased to CFSL, Hyderabad, sending of some
documents relating to deceased to FSL, Rohini, sending of
laptop and mobile phones of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
and two SIM Cards of deceased to FSL, Rohini, receiving
of DVD from Sh.Ankit Sharma with regard to opinion
received from Microsoft Company, seeking details of
Notary Public Ms.Sushma Gupta, examination of
Ms.Sushma Gupta, examination of Atul Puri, Rajiv
Parasher, Monal Sachdeva and Shirish Thorat and seeking
subsequent opinion from Dr.Bhim Singh and thereafter,
filing the chargesheet on 05.10.2012.
129. PW-63 Ex.Addl.DCP S.Saravanan was
Additional DCP, North-West District, Delhi in 2012 and he
had deposed that after filing of the chargesheet by the first
IO i.e. Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, he was transferred and thereafter,
the investigation file was handed over to him. He deposed
that during the course of further investigation, he had
interrogated Chanshivroop Singh Nayar, collected forensic
evidences with respect to electronic equipments seized and
sent them to forensic laboratory for their report and had
collected relevant documents from Civil Aviation
Authorities and also got the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. recorded of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar and
thereafter, he had filed the second supplementary
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
chargesheet in the month of January, 2013. He further
deposed that after recording the statement of Chanshivroop
Singh Nayar and finding evidence against him, he was
arrested and released on police bail. However, during the
course of investigation, it was revealed that Chanshivroop
Singh Nayar absconded to U.S.A. with the connivance of
Sh.Harminder Singh and accordingly, the case was
registered against Sh.Harminder Singh at PS Bharat Nagar.
He further deposed on oath regarding collecting of original
Account Opening Form of Sh.Monal Sachdeva from the
Citi Bank and Account Opening Form of Sh.Rajiv Parasher
from Axis Bank. He further deposed regarding collecting
of Airport Entry Pass of staff of MDLR Airlines from the
Airport Security, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. During
the course of further investigation, FSL reports from
Hyderabad and from Rohini were received. He further
deposed regarding examining of Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal
and obtaining of details of mobile phone of Sh.Sanjay
Kumar Bansal from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He
further deposed regarding obtaining of Letter Rogatory and
filing of supplementary chargesheet regarding execution of
Letter Rogatory received through CBI from U.A.E.
130. PW-64 is Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, who was
working in the year 2010 as an employee of Emirates
group, as Head of investigation Department. He deposed
that his job description was to conduct investigation and
inquires of all kinds. He further deposed that in the month
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
of August 2010, he received information from his HR
Department regarding receipt of complaint against
deceased where it was alleged that deceased was in illegal
possession of laptop, phone and other documents
belonging to her earlier employer i.e. MDLR Airlines.
Thereafter, PW-64 Shirish Maruti Thorat had initiated
investigation and during the course of inquiry, PW-64
Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat had sought information from
Sh.Rajiv Parasher regarding the NOC issued in favour of
deceased and Sh.Rajiv Parasher denied of having issued
any NOC in favour of deceased. PW-64 Sh.Shirish Maruti
Thorat further deposed that deceased admitted that she had
forged signatures of Sh.Rajiv Parasher. It was further
deposed that pursuant to his inquiry, he concluded that
deceased should be relieved of her duties and thereafter,
she left Dubai for India. PW-64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat
also deposed regarding handing over of documents
regarding his investigation to police vide Ex.PW62/K
(colly).
131. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar was posted as
ATO, PS Bharat Nagar and is also one of the investigating
officer, who had investigated the present case. PW-65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 05.08.2012 after
receipt of PCR call, they had reached at house of deceased
where they had found a dead body of a girl lying on a bed.
He further deposed regarding finding of a suicide note
from a diary lying on the table near the bed and recording
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
statement of mother of deceased, on the basis of which
rukka was prepared and the FIR was got registered. He
further deposed regarding inspection of the scene of the
crime by the Crime Team and getting body shifted to
Mortuary. He further deposed regarding seizing of ligature
material i.e. Chunni, green colour plastic stool used in the
commission of suicide, laptop make ACER and a mobile
make iphone of deceased and documents pertaining to
deceased of Emirates and MDLR Airlines. He further
deposed regarding seizing of spiral booklet having
handwriting of deceased and also black colour diary from
where suicide note was recovered. He also deposed
regarding seizing of documents regarding the case pending
at the Goa District court, seizing of suicide note and
preparation of the site plan at the instance of mother of
deceased.
132. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on
oath regarding filling up of Death Report Form
Ex.PW65/C and recording statement of various witnesses
i.e. father of deceased, brother of deceased, ASI Jagbir
Singh, HC Rajinder and supplementary statement of
mother of deceased during the course of investigation. The
case property duly seized by PW-65 Inspector Dinesh
Kumar was identified by him during the course of trial
when the same was produced before the court.
133. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed
regarding seizing of various emails exchanged between the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased and accused persons from Sh.Ankit Sharma,
brother of deceased. He further deposed regarding getting
the mirror image prepared of Laptop and mobile phone of
deceased from Cyber Lab of Special Cell, Delhi. He
further deposed regarding collecting of CDR of mobile
phone of accused persons and that of deceased. PW-65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on oath regarding
recording of statement of Sh.Mandeep Singh in whose
name, mobile phone no. 8860000029 was registered. PW-
65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed regarding
getting the statement of Anuradha Sharma, Dinesh Sharma,
Ankit Sharma and Mandeep Singh recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. He further deposed regarding collecting of
documents from Manager, Emirates Airlines and IILM,
Lodhi Road relating to deceased Geetika Sharma. He
further deposed regarding collecting of documents
regarding MDLR company and Sundale Educational
Society from Registrar of Companies and Registrar of
Societies. He further deposed regarding the arrest of
accused Gopal Goyal Kanda and interrogation of
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. He further deposed regarding
collecting of Air Travel Record of accused Gopal Goyal
Kanda, accused Aruna Chadha and deceased for the period
from 01.01.2006 till 22.08.2012 from FRRO.
134. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed on
oath regarding recording of statement of Sh.Batush Pal,
member of Sundale Educational Society. He further
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deposed regarding collecting of evidence from SHO, PS
Civil Lines, Gurgaon with regard to complaint made by
MDLR Airlines against deceased on 07.08.2010.
135. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on
oath regarding seizing of documents from Sh.Ankit
Ahluwalia pertaining to the case at Goa District court and
copy of quashing petition filed before the Goa High Court.
He further deposed regarding recording of statement of
Sh.Rajiv Parasher, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and that of
Sh.S.S.Katyal. He further deposed regarding collecting of
Air Tickets and other relevant documents from Sh.Siraz
Ali, Travel Agent pertaining to accused Gopal Goyal
Kanda, accused Aruna Chadha, Sanjay Bansal and
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. He further deposed that on
18.09.2012, he handed over the case file to Sh.Rajeev
Ranjan, Addl.DCP, North West, Delhi for further
investigation.
136. He further deposed that on 24.09.2012 on the
direction of Addl.DCP, he had gone to the FSL, Rohini
and submitted some additional admitted handwriting
documents pertaining to deceased Geetika Sharma. He
deposed that on 27.12.2012, he again went to FSL, Rohini
to deposit specimen and admitted handwriting of Sh.Monal
Sachdeva and Sh.Rajiv Parasher. He further deposed
regarding deposition of Letter Rogatory and Additional
Letter Rogatory with the CBI, HQ. He also deposed
regarding interrogation of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar in
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
his presence. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further
deposed that during the course of investigation by IO
namely Addl.DCP Sh.Rajeev Ranjan and Sh. S.Saravanan,
he assisted both of them. No other witness was examined
on behalf of prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution
evidence was closed.
137. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement
of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was
put to accused persons. Both accused persons in their
statement deposed that they have been falsely implicated
in the present case. Thereafter, the matter was posted for
defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
138. At the stage of defence evidence, an application
under Section 294 Cr.P.C for admitting the document i.e
Notification issued by Government of Haryana was filed
on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and
endorsement regarding the admission of said document by
Ld. Addl.PP was obtained and said document was
exhibited as Ex.D1 (colly). Further, despite grant of
opportunity to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, no defence
evidence was led by her. Thereafter, the defence
evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final
arguments.
139. I have heard Sh.Manish Rawat, Ld.Addl.PP for State
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and Sh.R.S.Malik, Sh.P.K.Sandheer & Sh.Rajeev Sirohi,
Ld.counsels for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and
Sh.Vishal Gosain and Sh.Chinmay Kanojia, Ld.counsels
for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. I have also carefully
perused the record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
140. It was submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State that in the

present case, both accused persons in pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy between the period from 18.10.2006
till death of deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening
night of 04/05.08.2012, had created such circumstance due
to which deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to
commit suicide. It was further submitted that deceased
Geetika Sharma was continuously harassed by accused
persons during the aforementioned period, due to which
deceased Geetika Sharma was made to take the extreme
step of committing suicide. Ld.Addl.PP for State pointed
out the following circumstances which showed that
accused persons had harassed deceased Geetika Sharma
continuously during the aforementioned period, which
ultimately led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide
and hence, they are guilty to abet suicide of deceased
Geetika Sharma under Section 306 read with 120-B IPC.
141. It was submitted that the first circumstance proved
on record, is the fact that deceased Geetika Sharma had
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
initially joined the MDLR Company, of which accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda was the CMD and co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha was the Manager, HR. It was submitted
that deceased Geetika Sharma was appointed as a Cabin
Crew Member in the year 2006 when she was not even 18
years old. It was further submitted that qualification of
deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of her appointment
was 12th pass and within a short span of time, deceased
Geetika Sharma was promoted as Senior Cabin Crew
Member and when in the year 2009, operations of MDLR
Airlines were suspended, deceased Geetika Sharma was
made a co-ordinator of MDLR Group and was asked to
report on daily basis to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda,
who was the Chairman and Managing Director of the
MDLR Group. It was further submitted that thereafter,
deceased Geetika Sharma was transferred to MDLR Hotels
and was given the job of looking after the work of Casino
by the name of “Mint” at Goa.
142. It was further submitted that when deceased Geetika
Sharma was posted in Goa, two employees of MDLR i.e.
Ankita and Nupur had a quarrel with deceased Geetika
Sharma and during the said quarrel, they had taken away
her mobile phone and laptop from her hotel and had
threatened her for which deceased Geetika Sharma had got
FIR registered against them at Goa. It was further
submitted that the name of Ankita is mentioned in the
suicide note of deceased Geetika Sharma dated 04.05.2012
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Ex.PW12/C wherein it is alleged by deceased Geetika
Sharma that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was having
illicit relationship with Ankita and also has a girl child
from her. It was submitted that pursuant to the registration
of FIR by deceased Geetika Sharma in Goa, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were
pressuring her to compound the offence, as accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda had illicit relations with Ankita. It was
further submitted that under pressure from accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha,
deceased Geetika Sharma had filed an application for
compounding of offence before the Ld.Magistrate in Goa
but the same was dismissed and thereafter, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were
pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to file quashing
petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Goa. However,
deceased Geetika Sharma was not willing to compound the
offence and this fact is borne out from the diary wherein
deceased Geetika Sharma had made a note in her
handwriting that she was being forced to compound the
offence.
143. It was further submitted that in order to put pressure
upon deceased Geetika Sharma to compound the offence,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda through his lawyer i.e.
PW-18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia was putting pressure upon
deceased Geetika Sharma and accordingly, PW-18
Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called deceased Geetika Sharma
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
on 03.08.2012 when she was in Mumbai to attend the
fashion show event hosted by her brother namely Ankit
Sharma and after receipt of said call, deceased Geetika
Sharma had become very tensed and due to long
conversation of the call, deceased Geetika Sharma, who
was waiting for her flight from Mumbai to Delhi, missed
the same on 03.08.2012, due to which she had to spend
the night at Mumbai Airport and reached Delhi by
catching the flight in the morning of 04.08.2012.
144. It was further submitted that after the incident of
theft and criminal intimidation in Goa, deceased Geetika
Sharma had returned to Delhi and thereafter, had not joined
the MDLR Group. However, on the assurance of accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that she will not be sent again to
Goa, she had rejoined MDLR Group and remained in the
employment till 22.05.2010. Thereafter, deceased Geetika
Sharma had resigned from the MDLR Group to join
Emirates Airlines in Dubai on 29.06.2010. It was further
submitted that when accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
came to know about deceased Geetika Sharma leaving his
company to join Emirates Airlines, then accused no.1
Gopal Goyal Kanda in conspiracy with co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha created such circumstance that deceased
Geetika Sharma had to resign from her job in Dubai and
returned to India in the month of August, 2010. It was
submitted in this regard that initially, accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda had refused to give a No-Objection
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
certificate to deceased Geetika Sharma but later on at the
instance of deceased Geetika Sharma, as per pre-planned
conspiracy, a forged NOC dated 22.05.2010 duly signed by
Sh.Rajiv Parasher was given to deceased Geetika Sharma
through Monal Sachdeva knowing fully well that Sh.Rajiv
Parasher was not in the employment of MDLR and same
was done with the malafide intention so that in future
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha can easily dis-own the NOC and blame deceased
Geetika Sharma for the forgery and ensure her return to the
MDLR Group. It was further submitted that in order to
ensure deceased Geetika Sharma re-joins MDLR Group,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had visited Dubai twice
and on one occasion, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had also
accompanied him. It was further submitted that accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on his visit to Dubai, had tried to
contact deceased Geetika Sharma telephonically but when
deceased Geetika Sharma did not respond, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda went to the building where deceased
Geetika Sharma was staying and tried to take entry in the
building but with no success. It was further submitted that
thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had met both accused
persons in a coffee house wherein both accused persons
pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to leave Emirates
Airlines and rejoin MDLR Group. However, when
deceased Geetika Sharma did not accede to their demand,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had appointed his former
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
employee by the name of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar as
Assistant HR Manager in MDLR Group, with the sole
objective of ensuring return of deceased Geetika Sharma to
MDLR Group. Accordingly, Chanshiv Roop Singh Nayar
had gone to Dubai and had made a complaint to Sh.Shirish
Thorat, who was working in Emirates in the capacity of
Head of Investigation and Security Group regarding
forgery of NOC by deceased Geetika Sharma. Co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar also handed over the complaint
made by MDLR Airlines to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon
against deceased Geetika Sharma to the HR Department of
Emirates Airlines and even accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had sent email dated 10.08.2010 to Sh.Shirish
Thorat of Emirates Airlines alleging forgery by deceased
Geetika Sharma. It was further submitted that based upon
the complaint made by accused persons, inquiry was
initiated at Emirates Airlines and accordingly, deceased
Geetika Sharma was made to resign. It was further
submitted that thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had
come to India but did not join any company thereafter.
145. It was further submitted that in order to put pressure
upon deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR, a fake
email was created by co-accused Chanshivroop Singh
Nayar from which extradition documents were sent to
deceased Geetika Sharma wherein it was mentioned that
due to pending complaint against her in Dubai, she would
be extradited to Dubai. It was further submitted that this
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
email and extradition documents and order of the court
were found to be forged as per the execution report sent by
U.A.E. authorities pursuant to the Additional Letter
Rogatory sent by IO in this case. It was further submitted
that thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his
wife had visited the house of deceased Geetika Sharma in
December, 2010 and had apologized for his mis-conduct
and even offered two fresh NOCs to gain the trust of
deceased Geetika Sharma and her parents. Thereafter,
deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined MDLR Group as
Director in January, 2011. It was submitted that the
incident which took place in Dubai shows that deceased
Geetika Sharma was harassed to such an extent by way of
forged NOC and forged email regarding extradition, due to
which deceased Geetika Sharma had to resign and was not
willing to rejoin MDLR Group despite losing her job.
146. It was submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had
resigned from the MDLR Group in December, 2011 and
thereafter, accused persons were in the process of buying a
school in Gurgaon which was being run by Sundale
Educational Society and this fact is proved on record by
the evidence of PW-17 Aditya Mangla and PW-30 Batush
Pal. It was submitted that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
was putting pressure upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to
become President in the said Society and she was being
forced to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society. It
was further submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma was
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
unwilling to sign the same as she apprehended that she
might be involved in some wrong doings. It was further
submitted that documents of Sundale Educational Society
were recovered, at the instance of accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha, which shows that deceased Geetika Sharma was
made President in the same.
147. It was further submitted that accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha had called mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on
03.08.2012, wherein she had asked the mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma to ask deceased Geetika Sharma to sign
the papers failing which a case would be reported against
deceased Geetika Sharma in Haryana. Similarly, accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had also called mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 extending the
same threats. It was further submitted that this
circumstance also showed that deceased Geetika Sharma
was being harassed and had become depressed due to
threat being extended by accused persons, which
eventually led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide
on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012.
148. It was further submitted that it has come on record
that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sponsored the
fees of Rs.7.5 Lacs for the MBA course of deceased
Geetika Sharma at IILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
and accordingly, deceased Geetika Sharma had joined the
said course on 25.06.2012. It was further submitted that
when accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called mother
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012, accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda had demanded return of
aforementioned admission fee, which also caused undue
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma.
149. It was further submitted that although deceased
Geetika Sharma was being continuously harassed by
accused persons since 2006 but immediate and proximate
cause of taking extreme step of committing suicide was the
phone call made by accused persons on 03.08.2012 and
04.08.2012 to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
wherein both accused apart from asking deceased Geetika
Sharma to sign papers had also levelled allegations
regarding the character of deceased Geetika Sharma. It
was further submitted that it has come in the evidence of
PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika
Sharma that after hearing these allegations, mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma had communicated the same to
deceased Geetika Sharma and after hearing the same,
deceased Geetika Sharma had become depressed and
ultimately committed suicide in the intervening night of
04/05.08.2012.
150. It was further submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State,
that suicide note in this case, which is on two pages and is
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C respectively shows that it was
due to continued harassment by accused persons that
deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide. In the suicide
note, deceased Geetika Sharma had held both accused
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
persons responsible for her death and wanted them to be
punished accordingly. It was further submitted that suicide
note is akin to a dying declaration and no person while
dying will implicate any person, which further proves that
it was due to continuous torture and harassment by accused
persons that deceased Geetika Sharma took extreme step of
committing suicide. It was further submitted that suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C stands proved on record
by the report of handwriting expert i.e. PW-43 Sh.Anurag
Sharma, who vide his report, after comparing the admitted
handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and questioned
handwriting and signatures appearing on the suicide note,
opined that writing and signatures are of the same person
on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C.
151. It was concluded by submitting that due to
continuous harassment by accused persons coupled with
the allegations regarding character of deceased Geetika
Sharma made on 03/04.08.2012 i.e made immediately
prior to her death and she being put under pressure to sign
papers for quashing of case registered at Goa, to sign
papers of Sundale Educational Society and to return the
amount of Rs.7.5 Lacs deposited for MBA course by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, led her to commit
suicide. It was submitted that all the aforementioned acts
of accused persons amount to instigation by them, which
led deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, a prayer
was made to convict both the accused persons for the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
offence under Section 306 read with 120-B IPC. In
support of his submissions, Ld.Addl.PP for State has relied
upon the following judgments: (1) Pawan Kumar Vs. State
of H.P. Crl.Appeal No. 775 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P.
(Crl.) No. 8998 of 2016) ; (2) UDE Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana Crl.Appeal No. 233 of 2010; (3) Randhir Singh
& Anr. Vs. State of Punjab Crl.Appeal No. 641 of 1999 ;
(4) C.Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Crl.Appeal Nos.127-130 of 2008; (5) Gurbachan Singh Vs.
Satpal Singh & Ors. 1990 AIR 209 ; (6) Brij Lal Vs. Prem
Chand & Anr. 1989 AIR 1661; (7) Firozuddin
Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala Crl.Appeal No.
357-359 of 1998; and (8) State Rep.by Inspector of Police
Vs. Saravanan and Anr. Crl.Appeal No. 832 of 2002.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-1

GOPAL GOYAL KANDA
152. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-1

Gopal Goyal Kanda that in the present case, prosecution
has examined as many as 65 witnesses to prove the charges
framed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda but from
the evidence, both oral and documentary, no charge has
been proved against the accused persons.
153. It was submitted that the first fact which creates a
doubt in the prosecution story is the delay in lodging the
FIR. It was submitted that in the present case, parents of
deceased came to know about the suicide at about 7.00-
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
7.30 a.m. on 05.08.2012 but FIR was registered at about
12.40 p.m. Therefore, there was a delay of about 05 hours
in recording the FIR, which has not been explained by the
prosecution. Due to this delay in lodging the FIR, the
possibility of concoction of allegations and introduction of
exaggerated account as a result of deliberation and
consultation, cannot be ruled out and it makes the
prosecution story doubtful. In support of his submission,
Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied
upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India delivered in (1) Thulia Kali Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393 and (2) Dilawar Singh
Vs. State of Delhi 2007 (12) SCC 614.
154. It was further submitted that in the present case,
even the inquest proceedings were not conducted promptly
and as per evidence of PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M., who had
conducted the post mortem, inquest papers were received
on 06.08.2012 even though death of deceased Geetika
Sharma had taken place on 05.08.2012. It was further
submitted that even inquest proceedings were not carried
out by the SDM as per the mandate of Section 174 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this delay in inquest suggests that there was no
suspicion in the death of deceased Geetika Sharma and
subsequently, after due deliberation and consultation, a
false complaint was lodged for some extraneous
consideration.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
155. Thirdly, it was submitted that in the present case,
FIR is a statement, which is recorded during investigation
and, therefore, is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. It was
submitted that police had come to know about suicide of
deceased Geetika Sharma at 9.20 a.m. on 05.08.2012 vide
DD No.8A Ex.PW-3/A and after reaching at the spot, even
suicide note was recovered. However, FIR was not
recorded on the basis of DD No.8A or on the basis of
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and police chose
to record the statement of mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha Sharma which is Ex.PW13/D
and on the basis of same, FIR was registered. In support of
his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India delivered in State of A.P. Vs.
Punati Ramulu & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2644 wherein it
was held that where Investigating Officer deliberately did
not record FIR after receipt of information of cognizable
offence, then FIR registered on the basis of statement of
complainant could not be treated as FIR and the said
statement would be a statement made during investigation
and hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that in the
present case also, IO did not deliberately record the FIR on
the basis of Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which disclosed
commission of alleged cognizable offence and chose to
record on the basis of statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma.
Therefore, it is no FIR and is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
156. It was further submitted that in the present case,
even FIR cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence
as the maker of the FIR i.e. Smt.Anuradha Sharma is dead.
Even her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence as
defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the said
witness. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the
following judgments: (1) Harkirat Vs. State of Punjab
1997 SCC (Crl) 1068; (2) R. Shaji Vs. State of
Kerala 2013 (1) RCR (Crl) 964; and (3) Arjun
Bishwas Vs. State of Assam 2005 Cri. L.J. 554.
157. It was submitted that in the present case, the main
charge, which is being pressed upon by the prosecution is
abetment of suicide under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC
whereby it is alleged that both accused during the period
from 2006 till the death of deceased Geetika Sharma, had
continuously harassed deceased Geetika Sharma, which
ultimately led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
158. It was further submitted that to prove the said
charge, prosecution has led two type of evidence i.e. oral
evidence of the family members of deceased i.e. mother of
deceased, PW12 Ankit Sharma (brother of deceased) and
PW13 Dinesh Sharma (father of deceased), PW11 Gaurav
Sharma (cousin of deceased) and PW9 Jyoti Sharma (aunt
of deceased) and the other set of evidence relied by the
prosecution is documentary evidence in the form of suicide
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and other documentary
evidence in the form of email, whatsapp chat, call records
etc. However, the evidence, both oral and documentary,
does not prove commission of any offence by accused
persons.
159. It was submitted that during the period from 2006-
2007 till 2010, when deceased Geetika Sharma was
working with MDLR Airlines/Hotels, no allegation of
harassment or instigation has been brought on record by
the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW9 Jyoti Sharma, PW11
Gaurav Sharma, PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh
Sharma. It was further submitted that it has come on record
that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined as a Cabin Crew
in the MDLR Airlines on attaining the age of 18 years
although she was interviewed before attaining the age of
18 years. It has also come on record that PW21 Sh.Rajiv
Parasher, who was working as General Manager in the
MDLR, had admitted in his cross-examination that apart
from deceased Geetika Sharma, other employees, who
were recruited with her, were also promoted in short span
of time and the condition in the contract requiring
deceased Geetika Sharma to report everyday to the
Chairman, was standard stipulation in all contracts of
appointment and there was nothing unusual in the contract
of deceased Geetika Sharma.
160. It was further submitted that the alleged promise of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda made to deceased
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Geetika Sharma and her family members after the fight,
which took place in Goa that deceased Geetika Sharma
would not be sent again to Goa, if she rejoins MDLR, was
not an unusual promise as deceased Geetika Sharma had
faced unpleasant incident of theft and criminal intimidation
in Goa. It was further submitted that company of accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda offering pay parity to deceased
Geetika Sharma regarding the offer made by Kingfisher
Airlines, was as per the established practices to retain an
employee and there is nothing unusual in the same.
Therefore, between the period 2006-2007 till 2010, when
deceased Geetika Sharma was in the MDLR Company/
Hotel, no question of harassment or instigation by accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has been brought on record and
the alleged acts of promotion, promise to not send
deceased Geetika Sharma to Goa again, pay parity with
Kingfisher Airlines was not unusual and even otherwise,
said acts can by no means amount to harassment or
instigation, done with the intention of causing deceased to
commit suicide.
161. It was further submitted that the next circumstance,
which has been brought on record is the alleged
harassment caused by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to
deceased Geetika Sharma when she had resigned from the
MDLR Airlines in 2010 to join Emirates Airlines in June,
2010. It was submitted that the allegations of the
prosecution is that pursuant to criminal conspiracy,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased Geetika Sharma was provided a forged NOC of
MDLR Group having signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher, even though he was not in the employment of
MDLR, was done with the view to make deceased Geetika
Sharma to resign from Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR
Group. However, this allegation has not been established
on record as it has been proved on record that the alleged
NOC issued by PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was a
forged document as PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher had
denied issuing the same and even the handwriting expert,
in his opinion, has corroborated the testimony of PW21
Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher that signature appearing on the
said NOC is not that of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher. Further,
the case of the prosecution that forged NOC was supplied
to deceased Geetika Sharma by Monal Sachdeva, has also
not been proved on record as Monal Sachdeva has not been
examined on record.
162. It was further submitted that PW64 Sh.Shirish
Maruti Thorat, who was posted with Emirates Airlines and
had done inquiry regarding forged NOC, admitted in his
cross-examination before this court, that deceased Geetika
Sharma had admitted before him that NOC was forged by
her as MDLR was not issuing the NOC to her. Therefore, it
stands proved on record that deceased Geetika Sharma
had resigned from Emirates Airlines due to her own
conduct of forging of NOC and accused had no role to play
in it.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
163. It was further submitted that other allegation made
by the prosecution against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda is that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had visited
Dubai twice and on one occasion, he had travelled with co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to convince deceased Geetika
Sharma to rejoin MDLR Airlines and had also gone to the
place where deceased Geetika Sharma was residing.
However, even this fact has not been established on record.
It was submitted in this regard that travel documents
produced by PW19 Shiraz Ali i.e. Air Tickets Mark P19/A
(1-11) are all computer generated documents not
accompanied with any certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which makes them
inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the fact of accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda traveling to Dubai, has not been
established on record.
164. It was further submitted that the allegation of
accused persons visiting residence of deceased Geetika
Sharma in Dubai and trying to create pressure upon her to
leave Dubai, being a Muslim country is not proved on
record. There is no message or e-mail sent by deceased
Geetika Sharma to her parents or brother informing about
any such incident. No such allegations were made by
deceased in her statement recorded by PW64 Sh.Shirish
Thorat, during inquiry of forged NOC.
165. It was further submitted that there is no evidence of
Security Guard or in the form of CCTV footage that
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had forcibly tried to enter
into the building in Dubai, where deceased Geetika
Sharma was residing in order to meet her. In the execution
report of Letter Rogatory Ex.PW56/A to Ex.PW56/D sent
by U.A.E. authorities, no CCTV footage of the alleged
incident has been provided. Therefore, there is no evidence
on record to suggest that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
had forcibly tried to enter into the building where deceased
Geetika Sharma was residing during her employment with
Emirates Airlines.
166. It was further submitted that evidence of PW12
Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma to the fact that
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith his wife had
come to their house in December, 2010 and had apologized
for his misconduct in Dubai and to win the trust of the
family, had also issued second NOC, has not been proved
on record. Even if it is assumed that any such incident took
place then, the very fact that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had issued the second NOC to deceased Geetika
Sharma, shows that deceased Geetika Sharma was free to
join any organization and she was not being compelled or
forced to join MDLR Airlines, as has been projected by the
prosecution.
167. Lastly, it was submitted that even if it is assumed
that the incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken
place in Dubai, then also the said incident, is not sufficient
to establish the mens rea on the part of accused A-1 Gopal
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Goyal Kanda for instigating deceased Geetika Sharma to
commit suicide as the said incident is quite remote in time
and not the proximate cause of deceased in committing
suicide. The said incident took place between July and
November-December, 2010 whereas deceased Geetika
Sharma had committed suicide in August, 2012. Therefore,
this huge gap of more than 1-1/2 years is too remote and is
not the proximate cause of deceased Geetika Sharma
committing suicide. In support of his submission,
upon the following judgments: (1) Rajesh Versus State
2020 (15) SCC 359 and (2) Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar
Vs. State of M.P 2002 SCC(Crl.) 1141.
forging of Dubai Court’s order and creation of fake email
ID are against absconder / co-accused Chanshivroop Singh
Nayar and no role has been assigned to accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was
submitted that the confession made by absconder / co-
accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not admissible
under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against
both accused persons as co-accused Chanshivroop Singh
Nayar is an absconder and his non-joining the trial makes
his confession inadmissible against both accused persons.
In this regard, Ld.Defence counsel has relied upon the
following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India delivered in (1) Hardeep Singh Sohal Vs. State of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Punjab 2004-SCC (Crl). (Suppl) 137 and (2) Esher
Singh Vs. State of A.P. 2004-SCC (Cr.) (Suppl.) 113.
169. It was submitted that after returning to India, draft
complaint prepared by PW28 Sh.S.S.Katyal Advocate, on
the instructions of deceased Geetika Sharma is not
admissible in evidence as it was a document, which was
stored in computer and in absence of any certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same is
inadmissible.
170. It was further submitted that after deceased Geetika
Sharma had returned to India in August, 2010, she had
rejoined MDLR Group in January, 2011 as Director and
continued working there till December, 2011 and during
this period, there is no evidence on record to suggest that
any harassment was caused by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda or co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha or any gift/favour
was given to deceased Geetika Sharma during this period.
171. Further, this act of deceased Geetika Sharma in
rejoining MDLR Group shows that deceased Geetika
Sharma and her family had condoned the alleged act of
harassment, if any, done by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha with regard to the
incident of Dubai and this fact is further corroborated by
the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which
mentions about the previous act being pardoned.
172. It was further submitted that after deceased Geetika
Sharma had resigned from MDLR in December, 2011,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to run a school,
had proposed to purchase school being run by Sundale
Educational Society for which he had contacted one
Batush Pal through Sh.Aditya Mangla and necessary
documents were got prepared where deceased Geetika
Sharma was shown as the President of the Sundale
Educational Society.
173. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased
Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign the papers of
Sundale Educational Society even though she was not
willing to do so and due to the threat being extended by
Aruna Chadha to sign the said papers, deceased Geetika
Sharma used to remain tensed and depressed. In this
regard, it was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda that the documents produced on
record of Sundale Educational Society recovered at the
instance of co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, have not been
proved as recovery witnesses i.e. PW26 Ram Pyari and
PW27 Ashok Sharma have not supported the prosecution
case regarding recovery of documents at the instance of
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was further submitted that
the agreement was not executed and even the payment
through cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, there was no
ground for putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma
to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society. It was
further submitted that no pressure was put upon deceased
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Geetika Sharma to sign papers of Sundale Educational
Society as deceased Geetika Sharma with the consent of
her parents, had voluntarily accompanied accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and
Khushboo Sharma to Singapore and with accused A-2
Aruna Chadha to Mumbai with regard to school work in
2012. It was submitted that if deceased Geetika Sharma
was being asked to sign the Sundale Educational Society's
papers, where she was made the President of the Society,
no dis-advantage would have occurred to deceased Geetika
Sharma. Therefore, this act does not amount to any kind of
harassment at the hands of accused persons.
174. It was submitted that the prosecution story that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign
documents of Sundale Educational Society is not proved
on record, as suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is
silent on this aspect. Even the testimony of PW12 Ankit
Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who are the brother
and father of deceased Geetika Sharma, are silent on this
aspect and even in the statement of mother of deceased, on
the basis of which FIR was registered, she has not
mentioned about the deceased Geetika Sharma being
forced to sign the Sundale Educational Society's papers.
175. It was further submitted that the alleged whatsapp
messages shown to have been sent by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda to deceased Geetika Sharma asking her to
sign Sundale Educational Society or resign, is not
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
admissible as the said messages are not accompanied with
any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and even the ownership of mobile phone from
which the said messages were sent, has not been connected
to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
176. Lastly, it was submitted that it has come in the
evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is the father of
deceased Geetika Sharma that he was looking after the
work of a flat in Ashok Vihar, which was to be used as a
registered office of Sundale Educational Society further
proves that father of deceased Geetika Sharma too was
interested in deceased Geetika Sharma participating in
running of school and that is why he was looking after the
work of repair of registered office, to be set up for the said
Society and the story put up by the prosecution that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign
Sundale Educational Society papers is a concocted story,
just to falsely implicate accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
177. It was further submitted that the other circumstance,
which was brought on record by the prosecution that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to
compound the offence of theft and criminal intimidation
got registered by her in Goa by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, has also not
been proved on record. It was submitted in this regard that
PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the lawyer of MDLR
Group and was handling the Goa case, has nowhere
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deposed on oath that he had forced deceased Geetika
Sharma to sign. It has further come on record that deceased
Geetika Sharma, accompanied by her parents, had gone to
the District Court in Goa where she had filed an
application for compounding of offence supported by her
affidavit, proves that deceased Geetika Sharma had
voluntarily filed an application to compound the offence. It
was further submitted that the call made by PW18
Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia to deceased Geetika Sharma in the
evening of 03.08.2012 regarding the Goa case, does not
amount to any kind of harassment as PW18 Sh.Ankit
Ahluwalia has no where deposed that due to the call made
by him, deceased Geetika Sharma had become stressed. It
was further submitted that the testimony of PW11
Sh.Gaurav Sharma, cousin of deceased Geetika Sharma,
who was allegedly with her at Mumbai Airport, when
deceased Geetika Sharma had received a call from PW18
Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia on 03.08.2012, is not reliable and
trustworthy as his presence at Mumbai Airport in the
evening of 03.08.2012 has not been proved on record. It
was submitted in this regard that deposition made by
PW11 Gaurav Sharma that he had accompanied deceased
Geetika Sharma to Mumbai on 03.08.2012 by flight is
neither supported with any air ticket nor there is any return
ticket by air of 03.08.2012 of deceased Geetika Sharma
and PW11 Gaurav Sharma as deposed by him.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
178. Further, the deposition of PW11 Gaurav Sharma that
they were waiting in the waiting area for their flight when
PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called, is not supported
with Boarding Pass of 03.08.2012. Therefore, the
testimony of PW11 Gaurav Sharma that due to call
received from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, deceased
Geetika Sharma had missed her return flight to Delhi and
they had to spend the night at Mumbai Airport and had to
return in the morning of 04.08.2012, is not at all
trustworthy or reliable. Further, the air ticket of 04.08.2012
in the morning is that of deceased Geetika Sharma only
and there is no ticket produced on record of PW11 Gaurav
Sharma to corroborate his version. Therefore, PW11
Gaurav Sharma concocted a false story that he was present
with deceased Geetika Sharma in the evening of
03.08.2012 and deceased Geetika Sharma had become
tensed after receiving the call from PW18 Sh.Ankit
Ahluwalia. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers
for compounding of the case registered at Goa, due to
which she was tensed and had eventually committed
suicide.
179. It was further submitted that the other circumstance
on which prosecution is relying to show that accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda intended that deceased Geetika
Sharma should commit suicide is the factum of accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda asking deceased Geetika Sharma to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
return fees of Rs.7.5 Lac, which was paid by his company
to sponsor her MBA, being pursued through IILM
Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. In this regard, it was
submitted that there is no evidence on record that accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda or his company had ever
demanded return of Rs.7.5 Lac, failing which a case would
be registered against deceased Geetika Sharma. The
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C makes no
mention about deceased Geetika Sharma being forced to
return Rs.7.5 Lac fees deposited by MDLR company.
Further, there is no mention of deceased Geetika Sharma
being forced to return MBA fees in the evidence of PW12
Ankit Sharma or of PW13 Dinesh Sharma.
180. It was further submitted that the prosecution has also
alleged in the circumstances of harassment by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda that the father of deceased Geetika
Sharma had purchased a flat with Universal Buildwell
Pvt.Ltd. by paying Rs.18 Lacs but the same was got
cancelled by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to
put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the
documents. However, this fact has not been proved on
record as no witness from Universal Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. has
been examined in this regard and even father of deceased
Geetika Sharma i.e. PW13 Dinesh Sharma has not deposed
regarding cancellation of his flat, at the instance of accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
181. It was further submitted that the last proximate
cause that prosecution has alleged against accused persons
is the phone call made by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to
the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012 and
the call made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to the
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012,
wherein both accused had threatened that in case, deceased
Geetika Sharma does not sign the papers, then she would
be arrested in Haryana and had further made allegations
against the character of deceased Geetika Sharma.
However, the same has not been established on record as
firstly, it is an admitted fact in his cross examination by
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, who was the IO of this
case that there was no direct communication between
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and deceased Geetika
Sharma for the past 08 months prior to her death.
182. Secondly, the ownership of mobile phone no.
9873200002 to be that of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
has not been established on record. Thirdly, the best
evidence, who could have proved the contents of the call
allegedly made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on
04.08.2012 and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on
03.08.2012 was the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma,
but unfortunately she expired before her deposition in this
case and, therefore, there is no evidence on record to
establish the contents of the call made to the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma. Fourthly, PW12 Ankit Sharma,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, was not in Delhi
when the alleged call was received by mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma. Fifthly, deposition made by PW13 Dinesh
Sharma regarding receipt of call by mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma and what accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had told her is nothing
but hear-say evidence, which is not admissible in evidence.
Sixthly, in case, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had indeed made a call to the
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 and
03.08.2012 respectively, wherein certain allegations have
been made regarding her character, then deceased Geetika
Sharma would have definitely confronted accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
but there is no call details on record showing deceased
Geetika Sharma calling accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
or co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 04.08.2012, after
hearing the allegations made by them from her mother,
which also exposes falsity of deposition of PW13 Dinesh
Sharma.
183. Seventhly, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C is totally silent regarding the call received on
03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 by the mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma and deceased Geetika Sharma becoming
depressed after hearing allegations from her mother made
Aruna Chadha.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
184. Lastly, the last person, who had talked with
deceased Geetika Sharma was PW12 Ankit Sharma. In his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.,
PW12 Ankit Sharma had not disclosed about any
harassment or threat being extended by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to
deceased Geetika Sharma to sign documents and his
version was that deceased Geetika Sharma claimed before
him that she was alright and also not disclosed to him any
threat of signing the papers or any character assassination
Aruna Chadha. However, during his deposition in the
court, PW12 Ankit Sharma made improvement from his
previous statement and deposed that when he had called
deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening night of
04/05.08.2012, deceased Geetika Sharma had told that she
was being harassed by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. This testimony of
PW12 Ankit Sharma cannot be relied upon as it is an
improvement from his previous statement and was made in
the court just to falsely implicate accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Therefore,
prosecution has failed to prove the allegations that
deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide due to calls
made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma on 04.08.2012 and 03.08.2012 respectively.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
185. It was further submitted that PW9 Jyoti and PW11
Gaurav Sharma are the relatives of deceased Geetika
Sharma and were staying in the same house. In their entire
testimony, both PW9 Jyoti and PW11 Gaurav have not
deposed any kind of harassment being done to deceased
Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and
co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Further, testimony of
PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who
happens to be the brother and father of deceased Geetika
Sharma, is also not trustworthy and reliable as they have
made substantial improvement in their testimony over their
previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and
164 Cr.P.C.
186. It was further submitted that there is other material
on record which creates a doubt in the present case. It was
submitted that it has come in the evidence that on the night
of 04.08.2012, six calls were made by deceased Geetika
Sharma. Out of these six calls, three calls were made by
deceased Geetika Sharma to her brother PW12 Ankit
Sharma but regarding other three calls, the matter has not
been investigated by the police for the reasons best known
to them.
187. It was further submitted that it is also proved on
record that deceased Geetika Sharma had not stayed at
Mumbai Airport on the night of 03.08.2012 with PW11
Gaurav Sharma as no air tickets / Boarding Pass of PW11
Gaurav Sharma was produced. Further, the post mortem of
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased Geetika Sharma suggest that deceased Geetika
Sharma was habitual to anal and vaginal sex and doctors
have observed that anal intercourse was recent act as some
redness and tear was observed in the anal orifice. It was
further submitted that possibility of deceased Geetika
Sharma staying with some other person on the night of
03.08.2012 in Mumbai and having physical relations with
that person, cannot be ruled out and possibility of same
person calling deceased Geetika Sharma on the night of
04.08.2012 and saying something to deceased Geetika
Sharma which eventually led her to commit suicide, also
cannot be ruled out.
188. It was further submitted that there is also evidence
on record to show that mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
had called deceased on her mobile phone on six occasions
between 2.18 a.m. to 2.31 a.m. on the intervening night of
04.08.2012 and 05.08.2012 and said calls were not
responded by deceased Geetika Sharma. Deceased
Geetika Sharma and her parents were living in the same
house and were sleeping in the adjacent rooms. If deceased
Geetika Sharma was not responding to her calls, then
natural conduct would have been arisen in her mind as to
why she was not responding and if no inquiry was made,
it shows that mother did not suspect that deceased Geetika
Sharma was under some kind of stress.
189. It was further submitted that if mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma had suspected deceased to be stressed or
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
depressed due to phone calls of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, then she would
not have left deceased Geetika Sharma alone in the night.
Therefore, this fact also makes it doubtful that deceased
Geetika Sharma had become stressed or depressed after
hearing from her mother regarding the calls made by
Aruna Chadha.
190. It was further submitted that apart from the
testimony of witnesses, which are not at all reliable and
trustworthy, as discussed hereinabove, the other evidence
on which prosecution is relying upon, is the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. However, the authenticity of
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is doubtful as it
is not proved on record that it was in the handwriting of
deceased Geetika Sharma or it was recovered in the
manner as deposed by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar.
It was submitted in this regard that there is no reference of
suicide note in the following documents: -- (1) In DD
No.8A, which was the initial information sent by the
parents regarding commission of suicide; (2) In statement
recorded of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the
basis of which FIR was registered; (3) In statement
recorded of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh
Sharma during the course of inquest proceedings: and
lastly, in the Inquest Form Ex.PW65/C which makes no
reference of suicide note.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
191. Further, the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C by PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar prior
to recording of FIR is also doubtful as he has deposed that
he had immediately sealed the suicide note after its
recovery but when the statement of PW12 Ankit Sharma
was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course
of investigation, PW12 Ankit Sharma had stated that after
seeing the suicide note, he can say that the handwriting is
that of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. her sister. How the
suicide note was shown to PW12 Ankit Sharma during his
examination, when the same was sealed by the IO, has not
been explained and the explanation provided by the IO that
he had prepared a photocopy of the same, is an after
thought. It was further submitted that suicide note is
written on two different pages and handwriting,
formation of words, signatures and dates are in different
handwriting, which is apparent to naked eyes. It was
submitted that even no writing instrument was recovered
from the room as admitted by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh
Kumar in his cross examination.
192. Further, initially the handwriting expert had not been
able to give any opinion on the basis of admitted
handwriting and suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
and only when further documents given by PW12 Ankit
Sharma to the police were sent to the handwriting expert,
then only report was given by the handwriting expert.
However, the source of document provided by PW12 Ankit
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma has not been established. Therefore, relying upon
the handwriting expert opinion on the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C will not be proper in the light
of other facts, which creates doubt regarding its recovery
and its authenticity.
193. It was further submitted that even assuming that
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is in the
handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma, then also
offence of abetment under Section 306 IPC has not been
established. It was submitted in this regard that in the
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, only the name
of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha has been mentioned and the opinion of
deceased Geetika Sharma regarding character of both
accused has been mentioned but no overt act has been
attributed to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, which led deceased Geetika
Sharma to commit suicide.
194. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika
Sharma had not made any clear and explicit reference in
the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C to the
specific act or instigation made by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha like
forcing her to sign Goa papers, forcing her to sign Sundale
Educational Society papers or asking her to refund the fees
of Rs.7.5 Lac spent on her MBA Course by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda. Further, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and Ex.PW12/C does not attribute any mens rea on the part
of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha to show that accused persons intended
deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Therefore,
even the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C do
not incriminate accused. In support of his submission,
upon the following judgments:- (1) 2019(2)-SCC(Crl.)-
219 M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police; (2) AIR-2011-SC-1238 M.Mohan with Velmurugan
& Anr. Vs. State by DSP: (3) AIR-2008-SC-2108 Sohan
Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana; (4) 2020-15 SCC-359
Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana 2020(4) SCC(Crl.)-75; (5)
2002-SCC(Crl.)-1141 Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar Vs. State of
M.P.; and (6) 2020(2)-TVT-544(SC) Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra.
195. On the contrary, the evidence which has been led on
record by the prosecution suggest that no harassment or
instigation of deceased Geetika Sharma could have been
possible by the acts of accused persons. It was submitted
in this regard that the act of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda in providing an official BMW Car to deceased
Geetika Sharma during her employment as Director from
January, 2011 till December, 2011, she being made
President of Sundale Educational Society, sponsoring her
trip to Singapore and Mumbai on account of school work,
her parents accompanying her and family of accused A-1
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Gopal Goyal Kanda to Goa, Mumbai and Shirdi in 2011,
the MDLR Company arranging business Visa of deceased
Geetika Sharma to U.K. from June, 2012 till December,
2012 and company of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
paying MBA fees to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lac of deceased
Geetika Sharma in IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, cannot
by any stretch of imagination be termed as conduct of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by which he intended to
cause deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
196. It was concluded by submitting that there is no
credible and admissible evidence to show that accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda pursuant to criminal conspiracy with
co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had created such
circumstances due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had
no option but to commit suicide or that accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
abetted the suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma by
instigating her.
197. It was further submitted that the charge of forging
NOC under the false signatures of Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher through Monal Sachdeva under Section
468/469/120-B IPC has not been proved on record by the
prosecution as firstly, Monal Sachdeva, who allegedly
handed over the NOC to deceased Geetika Sharma as per
prosecution case, has not been examined and secondly, as
per the evidence of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, it has
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had herself
admitted of having forged the NOC.
198. Secondly, the charge for the offence under Section
466/471 r/w 120-B IPC and 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000 for creating
fake email account bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com in the
office of MDLR in District Gurgaon, Haryana and sending
of fake extradition letter dated 13.09.2010 has not been
proved on record as during the course of investigation,
investigating agency found that the said fake email address
has been created by absconder /co-accused Chanshivroop
Singh from his address of Mohali, Punjab and confessional
statement of co-accused Chanshivroop Singh cannot be
used against accused persons under Section 30 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as absconder co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not facing joint trial
alongwith accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-
199. Further, there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy
brought on record by the prosecution to show that pursuant
to conspiracy with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and
co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, absconder / co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh had created fake email address and
had sent forged extradition documents to deceased Geetika
Sharma. Accordingly, it was concluded by submitting that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the
charges framed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Accordingly, a prayer was made for acquittal of accused
persons.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-2

ARUNA CHADHA
200. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-2

Aruna Chadha that apart from submissions made on behalf
of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, he has to further
submit that in the present case, no circumstance of
harassment / instigation, at the instance of accused A-2
Aruna Chadha has been proved on record by the
prosecution.
201. It was submitted that the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C, wherein the name of accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha has been mentioned by deceased Geetika Sharma,
has not been proved as per law. It was submitted that there
are various circumstances, which point towards the doubt
regarding the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C in the manner as deposed by PW65 Inspector
Dinesh Kumar. It was submitted in this regard that if IO
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar had seized the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C from the house of deceased
Geetika Sharma in the presence of family members, then
IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar has failed to explain as
to why no attestation by any family member has been
taken on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, at the
time of seizing the same.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
202. Further, suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is
having two different dates i.e. 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012
and no opinion has been sought from the FSL by the IO
regarding the age of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C and whether they were written on the same
day or not.
203. Further, IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar has
admitted in his cross examination that no writing
instrument was found from the room of deceased Geetika
Sharma, which also creates a doubt regarding suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, being written by deceased
Geetika Sharma.
204. It was submitted that signatures appearing on the
two suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are different
from one another and even writing on the two suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is not the same and said
differences are apparent and visible to the naked eye and in
the light of aforementioned suspicious circumstances, it is
not safe to rely upon the report of the handwriting expert
giving opinion that the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C was written by deceased Geetika Sharma after
having compared it with her admitted handwriting and
signatures.
205. It was further submitted that sanctity of sealing of
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C by IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar stood compromised as IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar had deposed that after sealing the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
suicide note, he had recorded the statement of brother of
deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. PW12 Ankit Sharma. PW12
Ankit Sharma in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement had stated
that after seeing the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C, he can say that writing in the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is that of deceased Geetika
Sharma. It was submitted that when suicide note was
sealed by the IO, then how PW12 Ankit Sharma could
have seen the same, creates a doubt regarding its recovery
and sealing by the IO. It was further submitted that IO
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar gives a false explanation
that he had kept a photocopy of the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C with him, which was shown
to the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of
recording of his statement, as this fact is not supported by
any document or case diary.
206. It was further submitted that even if it is assumed
that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was in the
handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma, then also suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not mention any act
of threat or instigation emanating from accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha, which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit
suicide. Further, suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
does not mention any specific act or such conduct of
accused persons, which created circumstances which left
deceased Geetika Sharma with no option except to commit
suicide.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
207. It was further submitted that mere naming of
Aruna Chadha in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C would not be sufficient to hold accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha guilty
for the offence of abetment of suicide by deceased in
absence of any mens rea on the part of accused persons to
instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. In
support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-2
Aruna Chadha has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2001) 9 SCC
618]; (2) State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr.
[(1994) 1 SCC; (3) Netai Dutta v State of West Bengal
[(2005) 2 SCC 659]; (4) Neeraj Gupta v State [132 (2006)
DLT 137]; and (5) Madan Mohan Singh Vs.State of
Gujarat and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 628.
208. It was further submitted that prosecution has alleged
that the mobile phone number 9873900002 was being used
by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha from which call was made
to mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012.
However, this fact has not been proved on record as the
evidence which has come on record shows that one
Dharambir was the owner of said mobile number as per
customer application form. Further, said witness
Dharambir has not been examined to prove that although
mobile number was registered in his name but the SIM
was being used by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and even no
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
other person was examined to show that he was
communicating with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on the
said mobile number.
209. It was further submitted that even assuming that
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called up the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012, then also the
alleged instigation has not been proved on record as
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to whom the alleged
instigation was made, has not been examined in this case
due to her unfortunate death. Further, even in the
statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which present FIR was
registered, there was no allegation that whatever facts
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had told her, the same were
communicated to deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore,
there is no evidence on record, direct or indirect, to show
that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had instigated deceased
Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
210. It was further submitted that the last telephonic
contact with deceased Geetika Sharma of accused A-2
Aruna Chadha was in the month of July, 2012 i.e. a month
prior to her death and this fact has been admitted by PW12
Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma and by
IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, in his cross-
examination. It was submitted that after the last telephonic
contact with deceased Geetika Sharma in July, 2012, it
gave ample time to deceased Geetika Sharma to reflect on
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
the alleged threat and pressure allegedly made by accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was further submitted that if
deceased Geetika Sharma had enough time to think over
and reflect on the instigation by the abettor, then the same
would not qualify to fall within the rigors of section 306 of
the IPC. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Sanju
@ Sanjay Singh Sengar's case (supra).
211. It was further submitted that material witnesses of
the prosecution in this case are brother and father of
deceased Geetika Sharma, who have been examined as
PW12 and PW13 respectively. It was submitted that
PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma have made
material improvements and embellishments over their
previous statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, their evidence is
not reliable and trustworthy. It was further submitted that
PW12 Ankit Sharma was not in Delhi when allegedly call
was made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012. Therefore,
whatever PW12 Ankit Sharma had deposed regarding the
role of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha is nothing but hearsay
evidence, which is inadmissible. It was further submitted
that PW12 Ankit Sharma is the last person, who had
telephonic call with deceased Geetika Sharma and he had
deposed on oath that in his last call with deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma, she had stated to him that she was alright which
further negates the fact that deceased Geetika Sharma was
depressed and tensed due to alleged call made by accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma.
212. It was further submitted that PW13 Dinesh Sharma,
father of deceased Geetika Sharma had made material
improvements and embellishments in his deposition before
the court, which makes his testimony unreliable and non-
trustworthy and accordingly, the same is required to be
discarded.
213. It was further submitted that PW13 Dinesh Sharma
had deposed falsely that on the intervening night of 04 /
05.08.2012, he had seen deceased Geetika Sharma sitting
in her room at about 1.00 a.m. when he had gone to use
washroom and then he alongwith his wife went away to
sleep. However, this testimony of father of deceased
Geetika Sharma is falsified by the fact that IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar admitted in his cross examination
that between 2:18:50 a.m. and 2:31:47 a.m. on 05.08.2012,
there were multiple calls made by mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma to deceased Geetika Sharma. However,
during the course of investigation, no inquiry was made
about the nature of calls made by mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma, which also creates a doubt regarding the
prosecution case.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
214. It was further submitted that another important
witness of the prosecution was the mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma on whose statement the present case was
registered. However, the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma Smt.Anuradha Sharma has expired prior to her
deposition in the court. Therefore, her statement in the
form of FIR and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used
as a substantive piece of evidence due to the bar created by
Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as defence
never got a chance to cross examine the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma. In this context, Ld.counsel for
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the following
judgments: (1) Arjun Biswas's case (Supra) and (2) R
Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266.
215. It was further submitted that all the email and
whatsapp messages brought on record by the prosecution
in this regard were not admissible as they are not
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
216. It was further submitted that the case of prosecution
that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha used to threaten and
pressurize deceased Geetika Sharma in conspiracy with co-
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, which eventually led her
to commit suicide, has not been proved on record in this
case.
217. On the contrary, the evidence which has come on
record proves that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased Geetika Sharma were having very cordial
relations, which over turns the case being put up by the
prosecution that deceased Geetika Sharma was being
harassed by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda through co-
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was submitted in this
regard that the evidence which has come on record shows
that between the period 13.12.2011 till 02.07.2012,
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had participated in the birthday
celebrations of deceased Geetika Sharma alongwith her
brother and deceased Geetika Sharma had participated in
the birthday celebration of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha in Gurgaon and both deceased Geetika Sharma and
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha attended the birthday party of
Ms.Khushboo Sharma on 02.07.2012. Said fact has been
proved on record by the photographs retrieved from the
mobile phone of deceased Geetika Sharma regarding
which certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 has been placed on record by accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and these photographs are Mark X, X1 - X-11 and
Mark Y, Z, Z-1 respectively. Further, the fact of deceased
Geetika Sharma attending the birthday party of daughter of
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and that of PW14
Ms.Khushboo Sharma stands corroborated by PW14
Ms.Khushboo Sharma.
218. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika
Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were working with
the same company i.e. MDLR Group and they used to talk,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
socialize together and even travel together. Deceased
Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
travelled to Mumbai and Singapore as late as April, 2012
and in the entire prosecution evidence, no complaint made
by any family member against accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
to any authority has been brought on record. Therefore, the
aforementioned facts do not show any harassment of
deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
219. It was further submitted that it is not believable that
if accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was harassing deceased
Geetika Sharma since 2007, then deceased Geetika Sharma
would be traveling with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to
various places i.e. Singapore and Mumbai and would
socialize by calling accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to her
birthday party and deceased Geetika Sharma herself
attending the birthday party of daughter of accused A-2
Aruna Chadha. Even in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C, no allegations of harassment to deceased
Geetika Sharma have been levelled against accused A-2
Aruna Chadha. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove
on record any harassment being caused to deceased
Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in
conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha traveling to Dubai to put
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR,
has not been established on record as computer generated
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
tickets produced by PW19 Shiraz Ali have not been proved
on record in absence of any certificate under Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the various
emails provided by brother of deceased Geetika Sharma do
not prove any act of harassment against accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha as firstly, these emails are inadmissible in absence
of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and secondly, even the email ID of deceased
Geetika Sharma has not been proved as per law.
221. It was further submitted that with regard to
allegations of forging of NOC or creation of fake email ID
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com or forging of Dubai Court
order, there is no direct evidence led on record by the
prosecution that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
committed any kind of forgery.
222. Lastly, it was submitted that even the charge of
conspiracy has not been proved on record as there is no
legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence brought on
record. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Kehar
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1988 (3) SCC 609.
223. It was concluded by submitting that in absence of
any reliable and trustworthy evidence, prosecution has
failed to prove any of the charges framed against accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha. Accordingly, it was prayed that
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha be acquitted of all the charges.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
224. I have considered the submissions made by
respective counsels, carefully perused the judgments relied
upon by respective counsels and have carefully perused the
evidence brought on record, both oral as well as
documentary.
225. In the present case, the first charge, which
prosecution was required to prove was that both accused
persons in criminal conspiracy with absconder co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar had created a fake email ID in
the name of bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com in the office of
MDLR company in District Gurgaon, Haryana after return
of deceased Geetika Sharma from Dubai to Delhi in
August, 2010 and from this email account, fake extradition
letter dated 13.09.2010 allegedly issued by Judge Hasan
Abdul Aziz Masnad was transmitted to the email account
of deceased Geetika Sharma and thereby both accused had
committed the offence under Section 466/471 IPC and
Section 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000 r/w 120-B IPC.
226. I have carefully perused the evidence which has
come on record and I agree with the submission put
forward by Ld.counsel for both accused persons that there
is no evidence on record showing that the act of creation of
fake email account i.e. bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com was
done by both accused in conspiracy with absconder co-
accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. The prosecution was
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
relying upon the confessional statement of absconder co-
accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2012 to show that the
aforementioned email account was created pursuant to
criminal conspiracy with present accused persons.
However, the said confessional statement of absconder co-
accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 27.11.2012 Ex.PW47/K (colly)
cannot be relied upon under Section 30 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 as absconder co-accused
Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not facing any joint trial with
present accused persons. [Reliance is placed upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
delivered in Hardeep Singh Sohal's case (Supra) and
Esher Singh's case (supra)].
227. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Pancho Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal
Appeal No. 1050 of 2005 has held that confession
cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence and that
it can be used only to form the conclusion drawn from
other evidence in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court further held that trial court cannot begin on the basis
of confession of a co-accused to form its opinion in a case.
Rather court must analyze other evidence being adduced
and on being satisfied with the guilt of accused may turn to
the confession in order to receive assurance to the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
conclusion of guilt which the court has reached with the
said evidence.
228. In the present case, apart from the aforementioned
confession of absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh,
which is otherwise not admissible under Section 30 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as he is not facing the joint
trial with the present accused persons, there is no other
evidence to show that fake email account
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com was created at the MDLR
office in Gurgaon, Haryana. On the contrary, the evidence
which has come on record in the light of deposition made
by PW53 Sh.Vijay Gahlawat of Cyber Cell, New Delhi
proves that shivroopbabbar@gmail.com was the
alternative email address of email ID i.e.
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com and it was created from the
address of Sector-71, Mohali, Punjab. The said deposition
was made by PW53 Sh.Vijay Gahlawat after collecting
relevant documents from Hotmail, Google, Hathway vide
Ex.PW53/A (colly). Lastly, even the ownership of email
account of deceased wherein the alleged mail was sent by
absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh has not been
proved on record to show that it was indeed sent to her
email address. Even the alleged mail dated 01.10.2010
Ex.P6, PW7 and P8 [mail sent to deceased Geetika
Sharma by Sheikh Bashir dated 01.10.2010 with
attachment of Justice Hassan and profile of Sanjay Verma]
produced on record by PW12 Ankit Sharma showing the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
sending of forged extradition order to the email of
deceased is not admissible in evidence as it is not
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the light of aforesaid
discussion, prosecution has failed to prove the charge
under Section 466/471 IPC and Section 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000
r/w 120-B IPC against present accused persons.
229. Secondly, prosecution was required to prove charge
under Section 468/469 r/w 120-B IPC wherein it is alleged
that pursuant to conspiracy, both accused had got issued on
or before 26.06.2010 at the office of MDLR Group,
Gurgaon, a NOC mark "A" under the false signatures of
PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher through employee Monal
Sachdeva.
230. As per the prosecution case, a forged NOC
Ex.PW43/A having the false signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv
Kumar Parasher was got issued by accused persons to
deceased Geetika Sharma when she was joining Emirates
Airlines in Dubai so that in future, the same can be used
against her to bring her back to the MDLR Group in
Gurgaon. As per the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma,
NOC having the signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher was posted by Monal Sachdeva, employee of
MDLR Group, which was received at their residence by
post and the said NOC was used by deceased Geetika
Sharma at the time of her joining in Emirates Airlines in
Dubai.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
231. The best witness, who could have deposed regarding
posting the NOC having false signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv
Kumar Parasher, was Monal Sachdeva. During the course
of investigation, the admitted handwriting and signatures
of Monal Sachdeva A-250 to A-255 Ex.PW43/I and
specimen handwriting of Monal Sachdeva S-8 to S-14
Ex.PW43/K were examined and compared with the
signatures appearing at point Q9 on the NOC Ex.PW43/A
by the handwriting expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma and
he opined that the same are not the signatures of Monal
Sachdeva. Despite obtaining the specimen and admitted
handwriting and signatures of Monal Sachdeva, PW Monal
Sachdeva was not examined in this case as a witness for
the reasons best known to the prosecution. The evidence
of PW Monal Sachdeva was very crucial to prove the fact
that he indeed posted the forged NOC Ex.PW43/A at the
residence of deceased Geetika Sharma to prove the charge
of forgery against the present accused persons. Due to
non-examination of PW Monal Sachdeva, there is no
evidence on record to suggest that the forged NOC
Ex.PW43/A was given to deceased Geetika Sharma
pursuant to conspiracy hatched between accused persons
through Monal Sachdeva.
232. Secondly, the prosecution has also failed to prove
that the false signature of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher
was made in the office of MDLR as he was not even the
employee at that point of time in the MDLR company.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
233. Although it is proved on record, in the light of
testimony of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher that NOC
having signature at point Q9 are not his signature, which
stands duly corroborated by the report of handwriting
expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma i.e. Ex.PW43/L but the
question remains as to who had forged the signature of
PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher on the NOC at point Q9.
The answer to the question is found in the testimony of
PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, who was the Head of
Investigation Department at Emirates Group, Dubai and
before whom the inquiry was marked to enquire into the
genuineness of the NOC Ex.PW43/A.
234. PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat in his evidence has
categorically admitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had
admitted before him of having submitted forged documents
for the purpose of gaining employment with Emirates. In
the light of admission made by PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti
Thorat, it is proved on record that NOC Ex.PW43/A
having forged signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher was not got issued by accused persons pursuant to
criminal conspiracy through Monal Sachdeva to deceased
Geetika Sharma and it was the deceased Geetika Sharma,
who herself had forged the said NOC. Therefore,
prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section
468/469 r/w 120-B IPC against accused persons regarding
sending of forged NOC to deceased Geetika Sharma
through Monal Sachdeva.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
235. Lastly, the prosecution was required to prove charge
of Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC framed against both accused
persons wherein it was alleged that pursuant to conspiracy,
both accused persons between the period from 18.10.2006
till June, 2012, had exerted pressure upon deceased
Geetika Sharma and her parents besides showering
benefits upon deceased Geetika Sharma by way of
promotion, help in the form of money from time to time
during the course of her employment with MDLR Group
and created circumstances from point "A" to "Y" as
mentioned in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and
accordingly, abetted the commission of suicide by
deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening night of 04 /
05.08.2012 at her residence i.e. Flat No.4C, Block No.1,
Pocket-B, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi.
236. The first ingredient, which prosecution was
required to prove for the offence under Section 306 IPC
was that death of deceased was suicidal.
237. In this regard, evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma,
who happens to be the father of deceased Geetika Sharma
is relevant. PW13 Dinesh Sharma has deposed that in the
morning of 05.08.2012, at about 7.-7.30 a.m., he knocked
the door of deceased Geetika Sharma's room but she was
not opening the same. Thereafter, when his wife peeped
into the window, she found deceased Geetika Sharma
hanging from the ceiling fan. Thereafter, window of the
room of deceased Geetika Sharma was forcibly opened and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
thereafter, body of deceased Geetika Sharma was brought
down by PW13 Dinesh Sharma. The testimony of PW13
Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma had
committed suicide by way of hanging, is duly corroborated
by the testimony of PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M., who was the
Chairman and PW55 Dr.Bhim Singh, who was the member
of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose of
conducting post mortem. PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M. and PW55
Dr.Bhim Singh have proved the post mortem report of
deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW1/B wherein it was
opined that death occurred due to hanging and ligature
mark is ante-mortem in nature. Therefore, in the light of
aforementioned evidence, it is proved on record that death
of deceased was suicidal in nature.
238. Now, the next point, which is required to be proved
by the prosecution is that both accused persons pursuant to
criminal conspiracy, had abetted the commission of suicide
by deceased Geetika Sharma.
239. In order to prove the charge of offence under
Section 306 IPC, prosecution is required to prove that
accused persons had the mens rea to instigate deceased
Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
240. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do "an act". Instigation can be inferred
when accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide.
241. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that
instigation has to be the proximate cause of suicide and if
the deceased had ample time to reflect on the alleged
instigation before committing suicide, then the same does
not amount to abetment to suicide.
242. It is also a settled principle of law that mere naming
of accused in the suicide note will not be sufficient to hold
accused guilty for the offence of abetment of commission
of suicide by deceased, unless in the suicide note, specific
act or instigation made on part of the accused is clearly
spelt out. [Reliance in this regard is placed upon the
following judgments: (1) Smt. J.Yashoda Vs. Smt. K.
Sobha Rani AIR-2007-SC-1721; (2) M.Mohan with
Velmurugan & Anr. Vs. State by DSP AIR-2011-SC-1238;
(3) 2020-15 SCC-359 Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana 2020(4)
SCC(Crl.)-75; (4) Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar Vs. State of
M.P. 2002-SCC(Crl.)-1141; (5) Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra 2020(2)-TVT-544(SC);
(6) Arjit Singh Vs. State 1(2010) DLT (Crl.) 237; (7)
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC
618]; (8) Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh [(2010) 1 SCC 750]; (9) Netai Dutta v State of
West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659]; and (10) Neeraj Gupta v
State [132 (2006) DLT 137].
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
243. In the light of law discussed hereinabove with
regard to as to how abetment of suicide is proved, the
circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are
required to be appreciated as to whether from the same, it
can be inferred that both accused persons had mens rea to
instigate and aid deceased Geetika Sharma in commission
of suicide.
244. The charge under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC refers
to circumstances from “a” to “y” as mentioned in the order
on charge dated 10.05.2013 as the circumstances, which
led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
245. The circumstances highlighted from serial no. (b) to
(e) pertain to deceased Geetika Sharma being made to join
MDLR Airlines prior to attaining the age of 18 years in
2006, being promoted as Senior Cabin Crew Member in
2008, being appointed Co-ordinator on 31.03.2009 and
resigning from MDLR Group on 22.05.2010.
246. The aforementioned circumstances do not make out
any act of instigation on the part of accused persons to
show that they intended deceased Geetika Sharma to
commit suicide. Even otherwise, it has come on record in
the cross examination of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh
Kumar that although deceased Geetika Sharma was offered
appointment vide letter dated 18.10.2006 (part of
Ex.PW13/A) but deceased Geetika Sharma had joined on
20.12.2006 i.e. after completing 18 years of age.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
247. Further, it has also come in the testimony of PW21
Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, who was working as the General
Manager with MDLR Group, that apart from deceased
Geetika Sharma, other candidates on similar basis were
promoted to the position of Senior Cabin Crew members
and it was only based upon her performance that deceased
Geetika Sharma was made the Co-ordinator of the MDLR
Group on 31.03.2009. PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher
also admitted in his cross examination that it was the duty
of all the Co-ordinators, including deceased Geetika
Sharma, to apprise about the activities of the MDLR group
to the Chairman on daily basis and deceased Geetika
Sharma was appointed after she had cleared the exam
conducted by Director General of Civil Aviation.
Therefore, the evidence of aforementioned witnesses do
not in anyway suggest that by way of giving promotions to
deceased Geetika Sharma or by appointing her as Co-
ordinator of MDLR Group, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had the motive to instigate deceased Geetika
Sharma to commit suicide. The act of promoting deceased
Geetika Sharma by no stretch of imagination can be treated
as creating a circumstance whereby deceased Geetika
Sharma will have no option but to commit suicide.
248. Further, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned
from MDLR Group on her own to join Emirates Airlines to
gain international experience and there is no evidence on
record to show that she was being pressurized to resign.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Therefore, the voluntary act of deceased Geetika Sharma
resigning from MDLR Group, also cannot be treated as
instigation by accused persons.
DUBAI INCIDENT
249. The other circumstances, which were being relied
upon by the prosecution i.e. (f), (g), (h), (i),(j), (k), (q) and
(s) pertain to the period when deceased Geetika Sharma
was working in Emirates Airlines in Dubai and the
prosecution case is that accused persons were pressurizing
deceased Geetika Sharma to resign from Emirates Airlines
and rejoin MDLR and with this objective, had visited
Dubai twice.
250. As per the prosecution case, accused persons were
not inclined to relieve deceased Geetika Sharma to join
Emirates Airlines and, therefore, were not issuing a NOC
(No-Objection Certificate) to her. However, on her
persistent demands, pursuant to conspiracy, forged NOC
having the forged signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar
Parasher was issued to deceased Geetika Sharma with a
view to compel her to rejoin MDLR Group in future. In
this context, PW12 Ankit Sharma, who happens to be the
brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, had deposed on oath
that NOC was posted by Monal Sachdeva, employee of
MDLR, which was received by them at their residence.
However, this fact has not been proved on record as PW
Monal Sachdeva has not been examined on record and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
secondly, there is no document on record to show that
deceased Geetika Sharma had ever applied for issuance of
NOC. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW64
Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat that deceased Geetika Sharma
admitted before him, during the course of inquiry, that she
had herself forged the said NOC. Therefore, the fact of
deceased Geetika Sharma being given forged NOC through
Monal Sachdeva in order to compel her to rejoin MDLR in
future, has not been established.
251. It has further come in the evidence of PW12 Ankit
Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma that in order
to compel deceased Geetika Sharma to return to India and
rejoin MDLR, both accused persons had gone to Dubai and
had met deceased Geetika Sharma and requested her to
rejoin MDLR Group. To further corroborate the testimony
of PW12 Ankit Sharma, prosecution has brought on record
the air tickets (Part of Ex.PW19/1) of both accused of
Dubai by examining PW19 Shiraz Ali, who was the travel
agent for MDLR Group.
252. In his letter dated 15.09.2012 Ex.PW19/1, PW19
Shiraz Ali had provided the details of travel of accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith co-accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and one Sanjay Kumar Bansal on 14.07.2010 and
return on 16.07.2010 and again traveling of accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda with Sanjay Kumar Bansal on
30.07.2010 and returning on 01.08.2010 and had also
annexed copies of air tickets Mark P-19/A(1-11). To
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
further corroborate the visit of accused persons to Dubai,
the arrival and departure entries of accused persons from
Delhi to Dubai and back to Delhi were obtained from the
Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Delhi vide
Ex.PW65/Q (colly).
253. Although I agree with the submission made by
Ld.counsels for accused persons that print out of tickets
Mark P19/A (1-11) provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali and
details of arrival and departure obtained from Foreign
Regional Registration Officer, Delhi vide Ex.PW65/Q do
not prove air travel of accused persons to Dubai alongwith
PW48 Sanjay Bansal, as they are computer generated
copies of the record and in absence of certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same
are inadmissible in evidence but still there is other
evidence on record to show that both accused had indeed
travelled to Dubai in the month of July-August, 2010
accompanied by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal.
254. First document to prove this fact is the letter dated
15.09.2012 Ex.PW19/1 vide which details of travel has
been provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali of both accused and
PW48 Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal wherein he has mentioned
that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2
Aruna Chadha had firstly, travelled to Dubai on
14.07.2010 and returned on 16.07.2010 and thereafter,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Kumar Bansal had travelled to Dubai on 30.07.2010 and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
had returned on 01.08.2010. The said details have been
provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali in a letter duly signed by
him and the details mentioned therein have not been
disputed by Ld.counsels for accused persons in his cross
examination.
255. Secondly, travel of accused persons to Dubai
alongwith PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal in the month of July-
August, 2010 has been admitted by PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Bansal.
256. Lastly, this fact is further corroborated by the copy
of passport submitted by Sh.Govind Goyal, brother of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda before IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar, during the course of
investigation, which was seized by him vide Ex.PW65/V.
In the said copy of passport, there is departure entry of
14.07.2010 from India and arrival entry of 14.07.2010 at
U.A.E., which corroborates the details of travel provided
by PW19 Shiraj Ali vide Ex.PW19/1. Therefore, this fact
also proves that accused A-1 had travelled to Dubai on
14.07.2010 as mentioned in Ex.PW19/1. Therefore, the
fact of accused persons traveling to Dubai in the month of
July-August, 2010 stands proved on record.
257. The next question, which is required to be answered
is whether accused persona had travelled for business
purpose or had gone to convince deceased Geetika Sharma
to return to India and rejoin MDLR. Although in the cross
examination by Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Kanda, PW48 Sanjay Bansal had admitted the suggestion
of defence that he travelled to Dubai alongwith accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for business purposes but the
admission regarding the same is not believable as nature of
business and the person with whom business meeting, if
any had taken place, has not been specifically mentioned
in the cross examination. If accused A-1 had indeed
travelled to Dubai for business purpose, then it was
imperative to have brought on record as to what was the
nature of business meeting, with whom the business
meeting had taken place and the place in Dubai where
meeting had taken place. In absence of all these details,
defence has failed to prove that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had travelled to Dubai with PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Bansal for business purposes.
258. The very fact that PW12 Ankit Sharma had deposed
correctly regarding the visit of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda to Dubai twice in 2010 and on one occasion
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had also travelled with him and
deceased Geetika Sharma had met both accused persons in
a cafeteria in Dubai, proves the truthfulness of his
deposition that during the trip of accused persons to Dubai,
they had met deceased Geetika Sharma. It is not the
defence of accused persons that their business trip to Dubai
was in public domain, therefore, PW12 Ankit Sharma had
the knowledge about the travel of accused persons to
Dubai and accordingly, he manipulated facts and deposed
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
falsely. This deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma proves that
he had derived knowledge about accused persons meeting
deceased Geetika Sharma in Dubai through his deceased
sister, otherwise it was not possible for the family of
deceased Geetika Sharma to know as to when accused
persons had travelled to Dubai and for what purpose.
259. Another fact which establishes on record that
accused persons had not travelled for business purposes
and had gone to convince deceased Geetika Sharma to
return to India, is two SMS, which were sent by PW48
Sh.Sanjay Bansal to deceased Geetika Sharma from his
mobile phone no.9811101010 on 29.07.2010. PW48
Sh.Sanjay Bansal had admitted in his evidence that he had
sent the said two SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma in the
year 2010 from his mobile number. Since PW48 Sanjay
Bansal was resiling from his previous statement, therefore,
he was allowed to be cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP for
State. In the said cross examination, PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Bansal denied that he had sent the two SMS Ex.PW48/A
at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. On
being further questioned by Ld.Addl.PP for State, as to
why SMS messages were sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal
to deceased Geetika Sharma, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal
deposed that since deceased Geetika Sharma had left the
MDLR Airlines, therefore, he used to update her. This
denial by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal and explanation
provided for sending the SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
vide Ex.PW48/A is falsified by the contents of SMS
Ex.PW48/A. On careful perusal of the SMS Ex.PW48/A
sent on 29.07.2010 to deceased Geetika Sharma, it is
apparent that PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal had sent these SMS
on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda as in these
SMS, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal is not updating deceased
Geetika Sharma about himself or the MDLR Airlines but
was providing the update regarding the emotional
condition of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. In the said
SMS Ex.PW48/A, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal was apprising
deceased Geetika Sharma about the condition of accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by using abbreviated word “GG”
for his name and had told deceased Geetika Sharma that
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda only talks about her and
he does not have interest in anything and cannot sleep
without taking sleeping pills and is ready to leave
everything including power, money, assets, relatives, nears
and dears and had further requested deceased Geetika
Sharma to resolve everything through meeting as it is not
possible to resolve through messages. This message
Ex.PW48/A proves that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
through PW48 Sanjay Bansal was requesting deceased
Geetika Sharma to meet them and further corroborates the
testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma that deceased Geetika
Sharma had met accused persons in a cafeteria in Dubai.
260. The contention of Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda that accused persons had never gone to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Dubai to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to
resign from Emirates Airlines and never met her as the said
fact has also not been stated by deceased Geetika Sharma
in her statement recorded during inquiry conducted by
PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, is required to be rejected.
The reason for the same is that inquiry, which was being
conducted by Emirates Airlines, was with regard to the
complaint made by MDLR Airlines regarding forging of
NOC by deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, during the
course of inquiry, it was not necessary for deceased
Geetika Sharma to have told about her personal meeting
with accused persons in Dubai and request made by
accused persons to resign from Emirates Airlines.
261. Although the allegation of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda sending email to PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat of
Emirates Airlines complaining against deceased Geetika
Sharma with regard to submission of fake documents of
MDLR company, has not been proved on record as no
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 has been annexed with the said email but the fact
remains that an inquiry was initiated by Emirates Airlines
with regard to submission of forged NOC of MDLR by
deceased Geetika Sharma. It is not believable that without
there being any complaint from the MDLR, an inquiry
could have been initiated by Emirates Airlines. Further, in
the cross examination of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat,
it was suggested by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
himself to PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat that inquiry was
initiated on the complaint of previous employer.
Therefore, this fact stands established on record that
inquiry was initiated against deceased Geetika Sharma by
Emirates Airlines on the complaint of MDLR Group.
262. Further, as discussed hereinabove, there is no
evidence on record that after resigning of deceased Geetika
Sharma from Emirates Airlines and her returning to Delhi,
forged extradition documents were sent from email ID
bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com pursuant to conspiracy by
accused persons.
263. The prosecution has further examined on record
PW9 Jyoti, who was the aunt of deceased Geetika Sharma
and she had deposed that she had accompanied deceased
Geetika Sharma in the year 2010 to her advocate PW28
Sh.S.S.Katyal where deceased Geetika Sharma got one
complaint typed which is Mark PW9/A. The prosecution
has also examined PW28 Sh.S.S.Katyal, who had
identified complaint mark PW9/A to have been drafted by
him and the same was accordingly exhibited as
Ex.PW28/A. Since reply Ex.PW28/A is computer
generated print out and is not accompanied with certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
same is not admissible in evidence. Even if it is assumed
that Ex.PW28/A is admissible in evidence, then also
contents of the same do not show that deceased Geetika
Sharma had made any allegations against accused persons
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
regarding they harassing her or forcing her to resign from
Emirates Airlines. Reply Ex.PW28/A is addressed to
Sanjay Verma, the Consul General of India, Embassy in
Dubai and the entire gist of the reply pertains to fake email
received from bhasir.emirates@hotmail.com and denial by
deceased Geetika Sharma of having committed any
offence of cheating by fraudulently taking away 50,000
Dirham in Dubai. Therefore, this letter Ex.PW28/A also do
not in any way prove any kind of harassment at the hands
of accused persons while deceased Geetika Sharma was
employed with Emirates Airlines.
264. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh
Sharma had also deposed on oath that in December, 2010,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife had come to
their house and had apologized for his conduct in Dubai
and had offered a fresh NOC of the same date on which
deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from the MDLR
and PW12 Ankit Sharma also deposed regarding issuance
of second NOC also by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda,
which fact is required to be believed as said testimony is
corroborated by fresh NOC dated 30.05.2010 and
22.05.2010, part of Ex.PW13/A i.e. Ex.PW13/A-1 to
Ex.PW13/A-20. The said NOC dated 30.05.2010 is duly
signed by the authorized signatory of MDLR Airlines Pvt.
Ltd. and the second NOC dated 22.05.2010 is duly signed
by PW14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda has not disputed the issuance or genuineness
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
of these two NOCs, in the cross examination of PW12
Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma.
265. The evidence, which has come on record proves that
after receipt of fresh NOC dated 30.05.2010 and
22.05.2010 from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda,
deceased Geetika Sharma had not joined any other
company but had rejoined MDLR Group as Director in
January, 2011. The said fact has been proved on record by
the testimony of PW27 Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was
working as the Company Secretary in MDLR Airlines
from the year 2010 till 30.11.2012. The very fact that
deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined MDLR Group even
though she was having a duly signed NOC from the
authorized signatory of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. giving
freedom to her to join any other company proves that
deceased Geetika Sharma and her family had pardoned the
conduct of accused persons in Dubai. Even otherwise, the
act of both accused persons in meeting with deceased
Geetika Sharma in Dubai and requesting her to rejoin
MDLR or MDLR sending a complaint to Emirates Airlines
regarding forging of NOC, which deceased Geetika
Sharma had herself forged, cannot be said to be such
conduct on the part of accused persons, which was done
with the intention of instigating deceased Geetika Sharma
to commit suicide. The request made by accused persons to
deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR Group shows
that accused persons wanted to retain deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma in their company i.e. MDLR and it cannot be said
that they had any mens rea to instigate deceased Geetika
Sharma to commit suicide.
266. Lastly, the incident of Dubai had taken place in 2010
and deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide on 04 /
05.08.2012. Therefore, even if it is assumed that accused
persons had harassed deceased Geetika Sharma in making
her resign from Emirates Airlines and it amounts to
instigation, then also since the incident was not proximate
to the death of deceased Geetika Sharma and deceased
Geetika Sharma had sufficient time to re-think about such
harassment, therefore, such remote conduct does not
amount to abetment to suicide.
APPOINTMENT AS DIRECTOR
267. The other circumstance, which has been highlighted
in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 is at serial no. (L)
and (m) regarding deceased Geetika Sharma being
appointed as Director on 13.01.2011 and her resignation on
25.12.2011.
268. The fact of deceased Geetika Sharma joining as
Director on 13.01.2011 and resigning on 25.12.2011 has
been proved on record by the testimony of PW12 Ankit
Sharma, PW13 Dinesh Sharma and PW27 Ashok Kumar
Sharma. Further, during this period, no complaint of any
harassment by accused persons was made. Further, as per
the testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma had resigned voluntarily in December, 2011 from
the Directorship, as there was no work. Further, the act of
deceased Geetika Sharma re-joining the MDLR Group as
Director in January, 2011 is also a voluntary act as accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had provided deceased Geetika
Sharma the NOC giving her freedom to join any other
company but the very fact that deceased Geetika Sharma
chose to rejoin MDLR Group proves shows that she had
rejoined the same voluntarily. Therefore, from the
evidence, which has come on record, there was no act of
harassment of deceased Geetika Sharma during this period
and she has resigned from the job due to there being no
work.
269. The other circumstance, which prosecution is
relying upon is at serial no. (u) of the order on charge dated
10.05.2013 wherein it has been stated that accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda had put pressure upon the company
M/s.Universal Builders for cancellation of allotment of flat
in the name of father of deceased Geetika Sharma, wherein
he had paid Rs.18 Lacs. The said fact has not been proved
on record as the entire testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma,
who happens to be the father of deceased Geetika Sharma,
is silent regarding cancellation of his flat by M/s.Universal
Builders, at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda. Even no official from M/s.Universal Builders has
been examined in this case to show that allotment of flat in
the name of father of deceased Geetika Sharma was
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
cancelled due to the pressure exerted by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda on them.
SUNDALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

270. The other circumstance which prosecution is relying
upon is mentioned at serial no. (o) of the order on charge
dated 10.05.2013 whereby it was alleged that deceased
Geetika Sharma was offered post of President of the
Sundale Educational Society with accused A-2 as
Secretary to run a school and accused persons were putting
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the
documents pertaining to aforesaid society and deceased
Geetika Sharma was not willing to do as she apprehended
that accused persons would do some violation of law, for
which she would be held responsible later on.
271. In order to prove the aforementioned circumstance,
prosecution has examined PW12 Ankit Sharma, PW13
Dinesh Sharma, PW17 Aditya Mangla and PW30 Batush
Pal. PW30 Batush Pal, was one of the member of Sundale
Educational Society, which was the owner of Pumpkin
School, at Sohna Road, Gurgaon. He had deposed on oath
that PW17 Aditya Mangla had approached him with regard
to the proposal to purchase his school and the deal was
stuck and some payment through cheque was received in
the month of July-August, 2012 but later on, on the
dishonourment of cheque of Rs.3.5 Lacs, the deal was
cancelled. He further deposed that later on, he came to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
know that papers, which were being prepared by PW17
Aditya Mangla, were not in the name of his wife, as told
by him earlier, but were in the name of accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and deceased. The prosecution had also examined
PW17 Aditya Mangla, who was the mediator in the said
deal between MDLR and Sundale Educational Society, of
which PW30 Batush Pal was one of the members. In his
cross examination, PW17 Aditya Mangla had admitted that
Sundale Educational Society was being taken over by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and, therefore, only the
representatives of the MDLR were made part of the
Society. It was further deposed by him in his cross
examination that talks for taking over the Sundale
Educational Society started in the year 2012 and planning
for taking over of said society was that of his wife, accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased and he was helping them
in this regard. Therefore, from the cross examination of
PW17 Aditya Mangla by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda,
it has been brought on record that deceased Geetika
Sharma was voluntarily participating with accused A-2
Aruna Chadha and wife of PW17 Aditya Mangla in taking
over of school run by Sundale Educational Society.
272. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased
Geetika Sharma in his examination in chief had stated that
on the intervening night of 04 / 05.08.2012 at about 1.15
a.m., he had received a call from deceased Geetika Sharma
wherein she had told him that both accused persons were
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
putting pressure upon her regarding signing of some
documents. Further, PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of
deceased Geetika Sharma also deposed on oath that his
wife after receiving a call from accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
on 03.08.2012 and from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
on 04.08.2012 had told deceased Geetika Sharma that
accused persons were asking deceased Geetika Sharma to
sign papers failing which a police case would be registered
in Haryana. This deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma and
PW13 Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma was
being pressurized to sign some papers is not at all reliable
and trustworthy as the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma
and PW13 Dinesh Sharma is not specific that deceased
Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers of
Sundale Educational Society against her wish and further,
this fact has not been deposed by them in their previous
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C.
273. Secondly, in the initial statement recorded of
Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which
FIR was registered, there is no specific reference that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers
of Sundale Educational Society. Even the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C makes no reference that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to sign the
papers of Sundale Educational Society.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
274. Further, the evidence which has come on record
shows that deceased Geetika Sharma despite resigning
from MDLR in December, 2011, was voluntarily
participating in the school work pertaining to Sundale
Educational Society
275. In the examination in chief of PW12 Ankit Sharma,
he has deposed on oath that in the month of February,
2012, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha came with the proposal
that MDLR is going to open a school and deceased
Geetika Sharma should work in their school. He further
deposed that after initial reluctance, deceased Geetika
Sharma had joined the school for one or two months and
there is no further deposition made by PW12 Ankit Sharma
that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced for the
work of school. It has also come in the cross examination
of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is father of deceased
Geetika Sharma that he was aware that a school project
was initiated after resignation of his daughter in December,
2011 and he was apprised about this project by his
deceased daughter. PW13 Dinesh Sharma also admitted, in
his cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, that
his deceased daughter had travelled alongwith accused A-2
Aruna Chadha to Mumbai in 2012 with regard to school
work and admitted in cross examination by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda that deceased Geetika Sharma
travelled with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to
Singapore between 27.11.2011 till 02.12.2011 for official
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
work and nature of official work was explained by PW62
Sh.Rajeev Ranjan in his cross examination to be a deal of
school and he further deposed that entire expenses of
Singapore trip were paid by MDLR. Therefore, from the
aforesaid evidence, it has come on record that father of
deceased Geetika Sharma was aware that deceased Geetika
Sharma was participating in the school work and was
traveling with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to Mumbai and
with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Singapore with
regard to school work. If deceased Geetika Sharma was
being pressurized to join the school or sign the Sundale
Educational Society's papers, then father of deceased
Geetika Sharma would not have allowed her to work for
the school or accompany accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to
Mumbai or accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Singapore.
276. Another fact which demonstrates that deceased
Geetika Sharma was voluntarily working for the school
and was not being pressurized is the renovation work of a
flat at Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, which was being
supervised by the father of deceased Geetika Sharma. It is
admitted by PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross
examination that flat bearing no. 2C, Pocket-B, Ashok
Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi was purchased by accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda in the name of his daughter and he
was supervising the work of this flat. However, PW13
Dinesh Sharma showed his ignorance that the flat was to
be used as a registered office of Sundale Educational
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Society However, IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his
cross examination admitted that in the documents of
Sundale Educational Society, the flat in the name of
Sushila Goyal, daughter of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda had been shown as registered office of Sundale
Educational Society. Therefore, the fact of PW13 Dinesh
Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma voluntarily
supervising the work of renovation of registered office of
Sundale Educational Society proves that not only
deceased Geetika Sharma but even her father was
voluntarily participating in the activities of the
aforementioned Society. This fact is further corroborated
by the evidence of PW17 Aditya Mangla, who had also
admitted in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda, that his wife, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
and deceased Geetika Sharma had planned for taking over
the Sundale Educational Society, which was having a
school at Sohna Road. Therefore, there is no evidence on
record to prove that deceased Geetika Sharma was
unwilling to join the school work of Sundale Educational
Society or that she was being pressurized to sign the
documents of Sundale Educational Society.
277. Even assuming that accused persons were putting
pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign Sundale
Educational Society's documents, then also it does not
amount to any kind of harassment as by signing the same,
deceased Geetika Sharma would have become the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
President of the Sundale Educational Society, which was
running a school by the name of Pumpkin School in
Gurgaon, Haryana. Any person, who would be made
President of a society, running a school in Gurgaon, would
not have felt harassed or depressed but would have felt
happy on being chosen for such a prestigious post.
278. The other evidence in the form of whatsapp
messages where deceased Geetika Sharma was asked to
sign documents, is not admissible in the light of there
being no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Even assuming that deceased Geetika
Sharma was being requested through messages sent by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, to sign the papers of
Sundale Educational Society, then also it does not amount
to instigation on the part of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda, whereby he intended deceased Geetika Sharma to
commit suicide.
GOA's CASE
279. The other circumstance, which has been relied upon
by the prosecution to show that deceased Geetika Sharma
was subjected to continuous harassment by accused
persons is mentioned at serial no. (t) of the order on charge
dated 10.05.2013 whereby it is alleged that accused
persons had pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to
compromise the theft case lodged by her against two girls
namely, Ankita Singh and Nupur Mehta before Goa Court
and after dismissal of compromise application, accused
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
persons pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to file
quashing petition before the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court.
280. In this regard, relevant witness examined by the
prosecution is PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased
Geetika Sharma and he has deposed on oath that when
deceased Geetika Sharma was transferred to Goa to look
after the work of Casino, then her two co-employees
namely, Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh had picked up a
quarrel with deceased Geetika Sharma and had snatched
her mobile phone, laptop and passport and thereafter ran
away, for which deceased Geetika Sharma had lodged FIR
in Goa against Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh regarding
the said incident and thereafter, returned to Delhi.
281. PW12 Ankit Sharma, who is the brother of
deceased Geetika Sharma, had deposed on oath that when
deceased Geetika Sharma came to Mumbai to attend his
fashion show, Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, lawyer of MDLR, had
called him and told him that he wanted to speak to
deceased Geetika Sharma and thereafter, PW12 Ankit
Sharma had conveyed the said message to his deceased
sister and later on, in the evening hours, when PW12 Ankit
Sharma enquired from deceased Geetika Sharma
regarding the purpose for which Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had
called her, then deceased Geetika Sharma apprised PW12
Ankit Sharma that Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia was putting
pressure upon her to sign some documents in connection
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
with the case of Goa and due to long conversation with
Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, she also missed her flight.
282. The testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma regarding
receipt of call from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia and he
pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to sign some
papers of Goa case, is required to be dis-believed as in his
previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW12/DA, Ex.PW12/DB and
Ex.PW12/DC, no such fact was disclosed. Secondly, no
such fact was disclosed in the initial statement of
Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which
FIR was registered. Lastly, even the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not mention that Ankit
Ahluwalia, lawyer of MDLR was putting pressure upon
deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the Goa papers.
283. Further, there is evidence on record to show that
deceased Geetika Sharma had voluntarily compounded the
offence by filing an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
before the Ld.Magistrate, Panaji, Goa and by swearing
affidavit in support of said application. PW13 Dinesh
Sharma, who is the father of deceased Geetika Sharma
had admitted in his cross examination by accused A-2
Aruna Chadha that an application for compounding the
offence was duly signed by deceased Geetika Sharma
before the Goa Court. It has been further admitted by
PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination by accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, that whenever deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma had gone to attend the court hearing in Goa, he
used to accompany her. The fact of deceased Geetika
Sharma voluntarily compounding the offence with accused
Ankita and Nupur has been further corroborated by the
testimony of PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the
Manager (Legal) in MDLR Group of companies. During
the course of investigation, he had handed over all the
documents pertaining to the case registered in Goa
alongwith application for compounding of offence
Ex.PW18/C (colly). He admitted in his cross
examination that deceased Geetika Sharma had
compromised the case in Goa on her own and had
accordingly, filed an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
alongwith affidavit in the court of Ld.JMM, Panaji, Goa.
He further admitted that father of deceased Geetika
Sharma had accompanied her to Goa.
284. I have also carefully perused the document
Ex.PW18/C (colly) and it has an application for
compounding the offence, duly signed by deceased
Geetika Sharma and her affidavit.
285. It is not believable that deceased Geetika Sharma
would have filed application for compounding the offence
alongwith affidavit before Ld.JMM, Goa under some kind
of pressure when her father was also present with her.
286. Further, no complaint has been brought on record
made to any authority or court by deceased Geetika
Sharma that she was forced to file an application for
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
compounding of offence. Therefore, in the light of
aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that deceased
Geetika Sharma had voluntarily filed an application for
compounding of case at Goa.
REFUND OF MBA FEES OF RS.7,45,426/-.

287. Another circumstance, which has been relied upon
by the prosecution to show that deceased Geetika Sharma
was being harassed is mentioned at serial no. (y) of the
order on charge dated 10.05.2013 wherein it is alleged that
deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to return
the sponsored amount of Rs.9 Lacs by MDLR for her
MBA classes in IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi with a view
to exert pressure on her to return to MDLR.
288. The amount of fees of Rs.9 Lacs has been
inadvertently mentioned in the order on charge dated
10.05.2013 and the correct amount of fees deposited by
MDLR was Rs.7,45,426/- as admitted by PW62 Sh.Rajeev
Ranjan in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda.
289. The said circumstance has not been proved on
record. In the entire evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma and
PW13 Dinesh Sharma, they have nowhere deposed that
any pressure was exerted upon deceased Geetika Sharma
to return the sponsored amount paid by MDLR for her
MBA classes at IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Although
PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination has
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
confirmed that fees for the MBA classes was sponsored by
MDLR company but his entire deposition is silent on the
aspect of deceased Geetika Sharma being asked to return
the fees of her MBA Classes. Even the suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not make any specific
reference that accused persons were putting pressure upon
deceased Geetika Sharma to return the fees deposited by
MDLR for her MBA classes.
290. Further, even mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
Smt.Anuradha Sharma in her initial complaint
Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered, had
nowhere deposed regarding pressure being exerted upon
deceased Geetika Sharma to return the fees amount of her
MBA classes. Even in her subsequent statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F, no such allegation
is there. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show
that any pressure was being put upon deceased Geetika
Sharma by accused persons asking her to refund the fees.
TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN

MOTHER OF DECEASED AND ACCUSED
PERSONS PRIOR TO DEATH OF DECEASED
291. Another circumstance, which prosecution is relying

upon, which had occurred just prior to suicide of deceased
Geetika Sharma is mentioned at serial no. (v), (w) and (x)
of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and in the same, it
is alleged that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had a telephonic
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
conversation with mother of deceased on 03.08.2012,
wherein accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had levelled
allegations against the character of deceased Geetika
Sharma/victim and had also asked mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma to send deceased Geetika Sharma to the
office of MDLR to sign documents and further, on
04.08.2012, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had a
telephonic talk with mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
and he confirmed the allegations made by co-accused A-2
Aruna Chadha regarding the character of deceased
Geetika Sharma and further pressurized mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma to send her to the office to sign
documents, failing which FIR would be lodged in Haryana
against her. It is further alleged that the mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma, had communicated the conversation,
which had taken place between accused A-2 and mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma and between accused A-1 and
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, to deceased Geetika
Sharma on her return from Mumbai on 04.08.2012, after
hearing which deceased Geetika Sharma had become
extremely disturbed and depressed.
292. To prove the aforesaid circumstance, which occurred
immediately prior to deceased committing suicide, relevant
witness examined by the prosecution is PW13 Dinesh
Sharma, who is the father of deceased Geetika Sharma.
Admittedly, PW12 Ankit Sharma, who is the brother of
deceased Geetika Sharma, was not in Delhi on 03.08.2012
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and 04.08.2012, as he was in Mumbai at that point of time
with regard to his fashion show event.
293. As per evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, his wife
had received a call on 03.08.2012 from accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and on 04.08.2012 from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and the conversation, which had taken place
between accused persons and his wife, was communicated
to him by her and in his presence, his wife had narrated the
conversation to deceased Geetika Sharma, after hearing
which deceased Geetika Sharma had become disturbed.
294. The first fact, which was required to be established
by prosecution was that any call was made by accused A-2
Aruna Chadha to the wife of PW13 Dinesh Sharma on
03.08.2012 and by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on
04.08.2012. As per the evidence of IO PW65 Inspector
Dinesh Kumar, it has come on record during the course of
investigation that mobile phone nos. 9873200002 and
8860000029 were being used by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda and mobile phone nos.9873900002 and
9910110235 were being used by accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha.
295. To prove the factum of ownership of aforesaid
mobile phone numbers, PW42 Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal was
examined. PW42 Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal being the Nodal
Officer of Vodafone Idea Ltd., had produced relevant
documents on record alongwith certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per his evidence,
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
mobile phone no.9818625001 was in the name of
Ms.Anuradha Sharma i.e. mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma and he also produced the Call Detail Record of her
mobile phone number which was Ex.PW42/J. He further
produced on record the Customer Application Form for
mobile phone no.9873900002, which was found to be in
the name of Dharambir S/o Sh.Ved Prakash and mobile
phone no.9873200002, which was found to be in the name
of Deepak S/o Sh.Dhannamal. He also produced certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in
support of documents regarding aforementioned mobile
phone numbers.
296. The prosecution had examined PW10 Deepak Jindal
and he had deposed that he had taken the mobile
no.9873200002 in his name while working in the MDLR
company, Gurgaon of which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda was the owner and later on, he handed over the SIM
of the aforesaid mobile number to accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda. He also confirmed regarding giving
statement before the Ld.Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/A. Nothing material was brought out in
his cross examination to create a doubt regarding his
credibility. Therefore, evidence of PW10 Deepak Jindal
proved on record that mobile no.9873200002 was being
used by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
297. With regard to mobile no.9873900002, Dharambir,
in whose name said mobile number was registered, was not
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
examined. Even in absence of Dharambir, it has been
proved on record that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was
using the aforesaid mobile number. I am supported in my
reasoning by deposition of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh
Kumar wherein he had deposed that mobile number
9873900002 belonged to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Said
fact was not challenged in his cross examination by
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and hence, stands admitted.
298. Further, in the cross examination of PW13 Dinesh
Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha recorded on
02.03.2016 at 2.30 p.m., it was herself suggested by
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to PW13 Dinesh Sharma that
she had made a call to his wife just prior to death of his
daughter, which PW13 Dinesh Sharma admitted. Since the
fact of using a particular mobile number was in the
specific knowledge of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha,
therefore, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, it was for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to have proved
on record that if she was not using the mobile number
9873900002, then what was the mobile number from
which she had made a call to mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma on 03.08.2012. However, the said onus under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been
discharged by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Therefore, it is
proved on record that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
made a call to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on
03.08.2012 by using mobile no. 9873900002.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
299. The testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma regarding
call being received by his wife from accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha on 03.08.2012 and from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda on 04.08.2012 further stands corroborated by the
Call Detail Record of mobile no. 9818625001, which was
in the name of wife of PW13 Dinesh Sharma. As per the
call detail record Ex.PW42/J (colly), a call was received on
03.08.2012 at 20.39 p.m. from mobile no. 9873900002 of
999 seconds and another call was received on 04.08.20212
at 10.51 a.m. of 980 seconds from 9873200002.
Therefore, testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma stands
corroborated by the Call Detail Record of his wife's mobile
and it is proved on record that a telephonic talk had indeed
taken place between mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and
between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012.
300. Now, the next question arises is whether the
conversation, which had taken place between mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
on 03.08.2012 and between mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on
04.08.2012 has been proved on record or not?
301. The best witness, who could have proved regarding
the exact conversation which took place, was the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma. However, due to her suicide,
prior to her examination in this case, she could not be
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
examined as a witness in this case. Even otherwise, in the
initial statement recorded of mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR has been
registered, she had only stated that in both the calls,
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha were asking mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
to send her to sign some papers and mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma had nowhere alleged in Ex.PW13/D that
any imputation regarding character of deceased Geetika
Sharma was made either by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda or by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha in their
respective calls. In her subsequent statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F, the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha sharma stated
that imputations against character of deceased Geetika
Sharma were made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on
03.08.2012 and by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on
04.08.2012, which she had communicated to deceased
Geetika Sharma. However, the statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F cannot be taken into
consideration as defence never got a right to cross examine
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha
Sharma and the said statement Ex.PW13/F cannot be
relied upon due to bar under Section 33 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. I am fortified in my reasoning by
the judgment delivered in Arjun Bishwas's case
(supra).
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
302. Further, PW13 Dinesh Sharma deposed that he was
present in the house when the mother of deceased Geetika
Sharma had received the calls on 03.08.2012 and
04.08.2012 respectively from accused persons and he was
told by his wife that accused persons were making
imputations against character of deceased Geetika Sharma.
This deposition of PW13 Dinesh Sharma is required to be
dis-believed as he has deposed about this fact for the first
time in court and in his previous statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/DA and under Section 164
Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/E, no such fact was stated. Therefore,
PW13 Dinesh Sharma had made material improvement in
his testimony over his previous statements and hence, it is
not safe to rely upon his this part of testimony.
303. The fact that no imputation against character of
deceased Geetika Sharma was made by accused persons to
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, is strengthened from
the deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma, who happens to be
the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma. In his
examination in chief, PW12 Ankit Sharma has deposed
that his last telephonic conversation with deceased
Geetika Sharma took place with her on the intervening
night of 04/05.08.2012 at about 1.15 a.m. and in the said
call, deceased Geetika Sharma had told him about both
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and A-2 Aruna Chadha,
asking her to sign some papers. However, PW12 Ankit
Sharma no where deposed that deceased Geetika Sharma
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
had apprised him that due to imputation made against her
character by accused persons in the telephonic
conversation with his mother, she had become tensed and
depressed. If deceased Geetika Sharma was indeed
stressed and depressed after hearing the imputation against
her character made by accused persons to her mother, then
she would have apprised the same to her brother prior to
her death. The said omission proves that no such
imputation regarding character of deceased Geetika
Sharma was made by accused persons and there was no
reason for her to become depressed or tensed after hearing
the conversation which took place between accused
persons and her mother. I am further supported in my
reasoning by the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
wherein deceased Geetika Sharma has nowhere
specifically stated that due to imputation made against her
character by accused persons to her mother, she was
ending her life.
304. In the light of aforementioned discussion, the
evidence which has come on record shows that the
conversation, which took place between accused persons
and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, was only with
regard to signing of some papers. In the opinion of this
court, merely asking deceased Geetika Sharma to sign
some papers through her mother, can by no stretch of
imagination be construed as an act by which the accused
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
persons intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should
commit suicide.
305. It has also come in the evidence of IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar that there was no telephonic
conversation between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda
and deceased Geetika Sharma for the past 7-8 months
prior to her death and between accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
and deceased Geetika Sharma for about one month prior
to her death. This fact also establishes on record that
accused persons had no opportunity to directly instigate
deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
306. Further, as discussed hereinbefore, accused persons
indirectly by communicating through mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma had not done any act by which they
intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit
suicide. Therefore, it is proved on record that accused
persons directly or indirectly, had not done any act of
instigation of deceased to commit suicide.
SUICIDE NOTE
307. The last circumstance, which prosecution was
required to prove is mentioned at serial no. (a) of the order
on charge dated 10.05.2013 and as per the same, it is
alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma had left behind a
suicide note dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 wherein
deceased Geetika Sharma had named both accused persons
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
as the persons responsible for driving her to commit
suicide.
308. Before dealing with the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C, it is imperative here to deal with the
submissions of Ld.defence counsels whereby they have
challenged the authenticity of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C as well as its recovery and have submitted that
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is a forged and a
fabricated document created by family of deceased Geetika
Sharma ti falsely implicate accused persons.
309. The first contention in this regard was that in none
of the statements of family members of deceased Geetika
Sharma i.e. mother, father and brother recorded on
05.08.2012, there is mention of any suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. Although it is true that in the
initial statement recorded of Smt.Anuradha Sharma,
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the
basis of which FIR was registered and the statement of
brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma recorded
on 05.08.2012 by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar
during inquest proceedings, there is no mention about
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C but this is no
ground to doubt the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C from the spiral diary kept on a table near
the bed in the room of deceased Geetika Sharma. The
reason for the same is that the family members of deceased
Geetika Sharma, on coming to know about sudden and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
unexpected death of deceased Geetika Sharma, must have
been in extreme shock and trauma and were not in a fit
state of mind to state all the facts in their respective
statements regarding recovery of suicide note by PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar. Further, suicide note was
recovered by PW65 Dinesh Kumar and whether he
apprised the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma about its
recovery prior to her statement, is not known. Therefore, it
is not a ground to doubt the recovery of suicide note.
Further, statement recorded during inquest proceedings of
father and brother only pertained to the identification of
the body of deceased Geetika Sharma and it was not a
detail statement regarding the manner in which deceased
Geetika Sharma had committed suicide. Therefore, there
was no requirement for brother and father of deceased
Geetika Sharma to have mentioned about recovery of
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C in their
respective statements during inquest proceedings.
Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.
310. The next contention in this regard by Ld.Defence
counsels for accused persons was that there is no mention
of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C in the death
report Ex.PW65/C prepared by IO PW65 Inspector
Dinesh Kumar and this fact was also admitted by IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination.
311. I have carefully perused the death report
Ex.PW65/C, which was prepared on 05.08.2012 and
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
although it is true that in the death report, there is no
reference made of any suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C or the place of occurrence but in the opinion
of this court, said omission does not create a doubt
regarding recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C, as there was no specific column asking for
details of recovery of any suicide note in case death is by
suicide. This contention is accordingly rejected.
312. The next contention of Ld.Defence counsels for
accused persons was that immediately after recovery of
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, the same was
sealed on 05.08.2012 by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh
Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C, then how in the
subsequent statement recorded on 07.08.2012 of PW12
Ankit Sharma i.e. brother of deceased Geetika Sharma
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is reference of he
identifying the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma
after seeing the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C.
The said contention also deserves to be rejected as IO
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination by
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has provided an explanation
that PW12 Ankit Sharma had identified the handwriting of
deceased Geetika Sharma after seeing photocopy of the
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar had retained. Although it is true
that this fact was not mentioned by IO PW65 Inspector
Dinesh Kumar in his case diary but there is other evidence
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
on record to show that copy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C was prepared. The request letter of PW57
Rajinder Prasad addressed to Head of Department,
Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical
College, New Delhi for performing the autopsy on
deceased Geetika Sharma is Ex.PW57/B (colly) and
photocopy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is
part of Ex.PW57/B. Further, as per the deposition made
by PW57 Rajinder Prasad, almost 15 papers were received
alongwith post mortem report from the doctor and the
same are forming part of Ex.PW57/B (colly). The
photocopy of the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
forming part of inquest papers received from doctor vide
Ex.PW57/B (colly) further supports this fact that
photocopy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
was prepared and the same must have been shown to
PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma
for getting handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma
identified from him.
313. The next contention of Ld.Defence counsels for
accused persons was that in the present case, FIR was
registered on the statement of mother of deceased
Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D and not on the suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, even though its
recovery was made prior to registration of FIR and it was
disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, FIR was ante-
dated and ante-timed. The said contention also deserves to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
be rejected as there was nothing wrong in recording of FIR
based upon statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma as she had given details of
circumstances which led deceased Geetika Sharma to
commit suicide and the role of accused persons in driving
deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Therefore, it
was but natural to have recorded the FIR on the basis of
statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma as she
could have deposed about the same during the course of
trial.
314. Further, in the endorsement made by IO PW65
Inspector Dinesh Kumar under the statement recorded of
mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, a note of
recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and
its seizing, is also duly mentioned in Ex.PW13/D. Further,
as per FIR Ex.PW3/B, FIR was registered on 05.08.2012
at 12.40 p.m. and it also mentions about recovery of
suicide note. Therefore, there was no chance of any
manipulation in the FIR or rukka Ex.PW65/A-1 and the
contents of the FIR and rukka being ante-timed and ante-
dated, deserves to be rejected.
315. Further, all the police officials, who had reached at
the spot i.e. PW8 ASI Jagbir Singh, PW57 Rajinder Prasad
and PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar have deposed
consistently regarding recovery of suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C from a spiral diary found on a
table near the bed in the room of deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma, which makes their testimony reliable and
trustworthy.
316. Further, the documents prepared at the spot by PW8
ASI Jagbir Singh i.e. brief facts of case Ex.PW8/G and
request to preserve body Ex.PW8/H, request letter for
performing autopsy Ex.PW57/B (colly) written by PW57
Rajinder Prasad and the crime team report Ex.PW20/1
prepared by PW20 Inspector Sanjiv, all make a reference
to the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C recovered
from the spot, which negates the contention of Ld.defence
counsels for accused persons that FIR was ante-timed and
ante-dated and no suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C was recovered on 05.08.2012 from the room
of deceased Geetika Sharma.
317. The next contention of Ld.defence counsels for
accused persons doubting the authenticity of suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was that no writing
instrument was recovered from the room of deceased
Geetika Sharma and even suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C are in different handwriting, having different
signatures and different dates, which creates a doubt
regarding the same being in the handwriting of deceased
Geetika Sharma and the possibility of same being
manipulated and concocted by the family members of
deceased Geetika Sharma, cannot be ruled out as even
there is delay of around five hours in getting the FIR
recorded.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
318. The said contention of Ld.defence counsels also
deserves to be rejected. The reason for the same is that as
per testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, he had observed
that his daughter had committed suicide in the morning of
05.08.2012 at about 7-7.30 a.m. and he has further deposed
that thereafter, he had called his nephew Gaurav and her
mother, who were residing in a flat, just above their flat
and his brother Sh.K.K.Sharma, who after sometime
reached at the spot and thereafter, had called the police at
100 number. As per testimony of PW8 ASI Jagbir Singh to
whom DD No.8A was entrusted for inquiry, he had
received the information at about 9.20 a.m. on 05.08.2012.
Therefore, the evidence which has come on record shows
that there was a delay of around 2 hours in reporting the
matter to the police. This delay of 2 hours does not create
any doubt in the prosecution case and is acceptable in the
facts of the present case. The deceased Geetika Sharma
was a young girl of 23 years of age and had died by way of
suicide by hanging and the parents of deceased Geetika
Sharma, who had seen her hanging must have been in a
great shock and trauma and were not in a fit state of mind
to immediately report the matter to the police. Any parent,
who is a witness to a suicide by their child will not be in a
fit state of mind as to what is required to be done and in
such type of incidents, lot of time is consumed in accepting
the fact that their child is no more. Seeing one’s child die
by way of suicide is very painful and traumatic experience
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
for the parents and it is not expected that parents will
immediately explore the legal remedies. Therefore, the
time taken of around 2 hours in reporting the matter to the
police regarding commission of suicide by daughter is
perfectly justified and it does not create any kind of
suspicion that intentionally, there was a delay in reporting
the matter to the police so that false allegations can be
concocted.
319. Although FIR has been registered in this case at
about 12.40 p.m. on 05.08.2012 but that delay cannot be
imputed to the parents of deceased as they only had the
duty to report about the suicide of their daughter to the
police promptly, which they had done at 9.20 a.m.
Thereafter, whatever time police had taken to complete the
necessary formalities like searching the place, calling the
crime team, getting the body of deceased shifted to
hospital, recording the statement of mother of deceased,
preparing rukka etc. cannot be attributed to the parents of
deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, there is no delay in
reporting the matter to the police and accordingly, the
contention in this regard of Ld.Defence counsels is
rejected.
320. The other contention of Ld.Defence counsels for
accused persons that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C are in different handwriting having different
dates and there being no writing instrument found in the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
room, creates a doubt regarding its authenticity, also
deserves to be dismissed.
321. The reason for the same is that suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C alongwith admitted
handwriting Ex.PW43/B-1 to Ex.PW43/B-3, Ex.PW43/C,
Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW43/E, Ex.PW43/F and Ex.PW43/G
were sent to the handwriting expert i.e. PW43 Sh.Anurag
Sharma, Assistant Director, FSL Rohini for his opinion and
PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma opined that after comparing the
admitted handwriting and signature of deceased, he came
to the conclusion that red encircled writing and signatures
Mark Q1 to Q6 on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C were written by the same person. In the cross
examination of PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma, nothing material
was brought on record to doubt the expertise of PW43
Sh.Anurag Sharma in examining the documents and giving
his opinion vide report Ex.PW43/L. Therefore, there is no
impediment in accepting the report of PW43 Sh.Anurag
Sharma Ex.PW43/L that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C was written by deceased Geetika Sharma. In
the light of report of the handwriting expert Ex.PW43/L, it
was immaterial as to whether any handwriting instrument /
material was recovered from the room or not.
322. Further, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C bears two different dates i.e. of 04.08.2012 on
Ex.PW12/B and of 04.05.2012 on Ex.PW12/C. Although
there is no evidence on record as to whether suicide note
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
dated 04.08.2012 Ex.PW12/B and dated 04.05.2012
Ex.PW12/C were written on the same date or not but one
thing is established on record that suicide note Ex.PW12/C
dated 04.05.2012 was not written on the said date. The
reason for the same is that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C were recovered from a black colour spiral
diary and on the first page, details show that diary was
with regard to IILM course and Roll No.48 is also
mentioned. Further, it is an admitted fact that deceased
Geetika Sharma had joined the MBA classes with IILM,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 25.06.2012. Therefore, the
diary which is Ex.PW12/D could not have come into
existence prior to 25.06.2012 and suicide note must have
been written after the said date. Since a person, who
commits suicide is under stress and tension and is not in a
fit state of mind, therefore, possibility of deceased Geetika
Sharma mentioning the incorrect date of 04.05.2012 on
Ex.PW12/C, cannot be ruled out.
323. Another reason on the basis of which the contention
of Ld.defence counsels for accused persons that suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is a false and a
fabricated document deserves to be rejected is the fact that
Ld.Defence counsels had led no evidence on record of any
other handwriting expert in support of their defence that
the handwriting and signature appearing on the suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are in different
handwriting. Nothing prevented accused persons from
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
obtaining the documents from court record and getting the
same examined from their own handwriting expert and
examining him as a witness in support of their defence that
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was forged and
fabricated document as it was not in the handwriting of
deceased Geetika Sharma. However, no such steps were
taken by accused persons which makes this court raise an
adverse inference against accused persons that in case they
had got examined the suicide note from any other
handwriting expert, then his report would not have been
favourable to the defence of accused persons. In the light
of aforementioned discussion and having regard to the
opinion of handwriting expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma
vide his report Ex.PW43/L, there is no doubt left that
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was written by
deceased Geetika Sharma herself and it was recovered in
the manner as deposed by witnesses.
324. Now, the next question arises is whether suicide
note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C incriminates accused
persons with regard to charge under Section 306 r/w 120-B
IPC or not?
325. It is a settled principle of law that mere naming of
accused in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C
would not be sufficient to hold accused guilty of abetment
of suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma unless in the
suicide note, specific act or instigation made on the part of
accused persons, have been mentioned. [Reliance is
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India delivered in Netai Dutta's case (supra)
and Gurcharan Singh Vs. The State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 decided on 1 October,
2020 and of the Hon'ble Punjab-Haryana High Court
delivered in A.R. Madhav Rao And Ors. Vs. State Of
Haryana and Anr. CRM M-2068 of 2012 (O&M) and
CRM M-33057 of 2011 (O&M) decided on 22 May,
2018].
326. In order to find out whether suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C specifically mentions about
the specific act or instigation made by accused persons,
which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide, it
is relevant to reproduce both the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C hereinbelow: --
Suicide Note
"I'm ending myself today because i'm shattered
inside. My trust has been broken and I'm being
cheated. Two people responsible for my death
is ARUNA CHADHA and GOPAL GOYAL
KANDA. Both of them have broken my trust
and misused me for their own Benefits. They
have ruined my life and now they are trying to
Sabotage my family members. My family is
very innocent. Aruna and Gopal goyal are liars,
cheaters and Crook. They can hurt and ruin any
one for their own Purpose. I've forgiven them
number of times but it was my biggest mistake.
Gopal Goyal before also did hurt me and my
family but we still forgave him but he again
misused our innocence and trust. He is a cheat,
and a fraud man. These two should be punished
for their wrong deed and malicious intentions
towards me and my family. They have made
my life abnormal.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
I love my Mom, dad and my bai.
Sd/-
Geetika Sharma
4/8/12
"Gopal Goyal is a fraud. He always keep his

bad intentions towards girls. He is a man of no
shame and no guilt. He always takes advantage
of others. he has illegal relationship with a
woman named 'Ankita' and a girl child also
with her. Still he keep on hitting on girls. He is
a shamelss and worst man I have ever seen in
my life. In the name of relationships, trust, god
he cheats people and harasses. He always lies.
He lies to his family, kids, People around,
everyone.
Now, this time Aruna is also helping
him to hurt me, harass me, sabotage my family.
She use to act as my well wisher but eventually
she has shown her true colors.For the sake of
her job she can stoop down to any level.
My biggest mistake was I trusted them, which
is now costing my life. I will never ever
forgive them. They are are the one who have
separated me today from my mom, dad and bai.
I hate dem, these two.
Sd/-
geetika sharma
4/5/12
327. From the contents of aforesaid suicide note

Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, it is apparent that no specific
acts or instigation done by any of accused, has been
specifically mentioned. There is no mention in suicide note
Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C that accused persons were
pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to sign documents
of Sundale Educational Society or she was being
pressurized to get FIR registered by her in Goa against
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Nupur and Ankita Singh, quashed or she was being
pressurized to return fees of Rs.7,45,426/- deposited by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for MBA classes at IILM,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. None of the above three
circumstances find mention in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B
and Ex.PW12/C. From the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C, it is apparent that deceased Geetika Sharma
had narrated as to what kind of character, accused persons
had in her estimation but has not narrated any facts to
show as to how she had been cheated or how her trust had
been broken by accused persons and whether the same was
done with the intention that deceased Geetika Sharma
should commit suicide. Therefore, in the opinion of this
court, the contents of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and
Ex.PW12/C do not prove that accused persons had
committed any act or series of acts in such a manner or had
created such circumstances for deceased Geetika Sharma,
that she was left with no other option but to commit
suicide or they had intended that deceased Geetika Sharma
should commit suicide.
328. Further, it has also come on record that there was no
telephonic contact between deceased Geetika Sharma and
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for the past 7-8 months
and between accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased
Geetika Sharma for the past around one month prior to her
death. Therefore, accused persons had no occasion to
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
directly instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit
suicide.
329. On the contrary, the evidence which has come on
record shows that the family of deceased Geetika Sharma
and that of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda were quite
friendly with each other and used to go out to visit various
places together. Deceased Geetika Sharma was also having
friendly relations with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and was
socializing with her. Deceased Geetika Sharma was also
being extended lot of favours by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda, which disproves the case of prosecution that both
accused persons intended to create such circumstances
wherein deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to
commit suicide. In this regard, testimony of PW13 Dinesh
Sharma, PW12 Ankit Sharma, PW14 Khushboo Sharma
and PW17 Aditya Mangla is relevant.
330. PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 01.03.2016, had
admitted regarding knowing the family of accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda and he further admitted that he
alongwith his wife, had visited the residence of accused A-
1 Gopal Goyal Kanda at Sirsa for attending the Shivratri
Festival in 2011. PW13 Dinesh Sharma also admitted that
deceased Geetika Sharma had visited Singapore with
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda from 27.11.2011 till
02.12.2011, that PW13 Dinesh Sharma alongwith his wife,
had travelled to Goa, Shirdi and Mumbai with accused A-1
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife in the month of January,
2011, expenses for which were borne by MDLR company,
that fees for MBA classes at IILM, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi was paid by MDLR, that deceased Geetika Sharma
had joined the MBA classes with their consent and that his
family had not lodged any complaint against accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda till the death of deceased Geetika
Sharma.
331. It has also come in the evidence of PW12 Ankit
Sharma, who happens to be the brother of deceased
Geetika Sharma, that deceased Geetika Sharma was
appointed as Director in MDLR Group in January, 2011
from where she had resigned in December, 2011. PW12
Ankit Sharma also admitted in his cross examination by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that deceased Geetika
Sharma used to commute to the office in an official BMW
Car.
332. The other evidence which has come on record shows
that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika
Sharma were good friends and they used to socialize
together by attending parties. It has come on record that
during the course of investigation, iphone of deceased
Geetika Sharma was seized and data retrieved from the
same was converted into a DVD and filed alongwith
chargesheet. Thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had
filed an application on record seeking the electronic record
found in the DVD for the purpose of her defence.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Thereafter, Ld.Predecessor of this court, had allowed the
application of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha vide order dated
22.01.2016 and the data of DVD was provided to accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha, who had filed on record photocopy of
the said record (photographs) alongwith certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated
07.03.2016.
333. During the course of cross examination of PW12
Ankit Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, certain
photographs obtained from the DVD having the data of
iphone of deceased Geetika Sharma was put to him and
after seeing the same, PW12 Ankit Sharma had identified
the photographs Mark X4 to be that of his deceased sister
and Khushboo. However, he denied that the said
photograph was taken on 28.04.2012 at Coco House,
Gurgaon during the birthday celebration of daughter of
334. PW12 Ankit Sharma also admitted that photograph
Mark "X5" shows him with his deceased sister but
expressed his ignorance regarding the place where the
same was taken. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma identified
photographs Mark "X6, X7, X8, X9 and X11" to be that of
his deceased sister and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
However, PW12 Ankit Sharma denied that photograph
Mark "X7" was taken at the time of birthday of deceased
Geetika Sharma on 13.12.2011. Further, PW12 Ankit
Sharma admitted that he attended the dinner with his
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
deceased sister and Khushboo in Garden of Five Senses
but denied that it was the birthday party of Khushboo held
on 04.07.2012.
335. Although PW12 Ankit Sharma had denied regarding
existence of friendly relations between accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma but the said fact has
been established on record by the testimony of PW14 i.e.
Ms.Khushboo. PW14 Ms.Khushboo was also employed
with MDLR in 2011 as General Manager (Administration)
and in her cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha, she admitted that she, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
and deceased were good friends and on couple of
occasions, she had met accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and
deceased in different restaurants so as to socially interact
with each other. She also admitted that she had met PW12
Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma in
various functions, which she had attended where brother of
deceased Geetika Sharma also participated in the same.
She further admitted that on 28.04.2012, she, accused A-2
Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma were present
at Coco House, Gurgaon to celebrate birthday of daughter
of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha where PW12 Ankit Sharma
was also present and she identified photograph Mark
14/DA in this regard. She also identified photograph Mark
X-7 which is of PW14 Ms.Khushboo, her husband,
deceased Geetika Sharma, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and
PW12 Ankit Sharma and she further deposed that these
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
photographs were taken on the birthday of deceased
Geetika Sharma. The deposition of PW14 Khushboo is
further corroborated by PW17 Aditya Mangla, who had
deposed in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda regarding the celebration of birthday of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 13.12.2011 at Lodhi Hotel at
Lodhi Road and regarding celebration of birthday of
daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 28.04.2012,
which he attended with his wife and deceased Geetika
Sharma. PW17 Aditya Mangla deposed that on
02.07.2012, on the occasion of birthday of his wife, a party
was held at Garden of Five Senses, which was attended by
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma.
Therefore, testimony of PW14 Khushboo and PW17
Aditya Mangla had proved on record the details of
functions alongwith their date which deceased Geetika
Sharma had attended alongwith her brother PW12 Ankit
Sharma, about which he had expressed his ignorance.
Therefore, it has come on record that deceased Geetika
Sharma was socializing with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha
alongwith her brother as late as 02.07.2012 by attending
the birthday of PW14 Khushboo.
336. In the light of aforementioned facts, which have
come on record, it is difficult to believe that accused
persons were harassing deceased Geetika Sharma from
2006 till June, 2012. The testimony of PW12 Ankit
Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Sharma used to become tense after receiving call from
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and deceased Geetika
Sharma had told to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on one
occasion, not to talk to her, does not inspire any kind of
confidence in the light of aforementioned facts showing
that deceased Geetika Sharma was friendly with accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha and used to socialize with her by
attending parties in different restaurants. Further, if
deceased Geetika Sharma used to become tense or stressed
due to receipt of call from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda, then there was no reason for deceased Geetika
Sharma to have rejoined the company of accused A-1
Gopal Goyal Kanda in January, 2011 or to continue with
the activities of school, post resigning in December, 2011
or in accepting sponsorship of fees for her MBA
programme in June, 2012 or accompanying accused to
Singapore. Any sane and prudent person would not
socialize or take benefits or favours from the very person,
who creates stress and tension in his/her life. The act of
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in appointing deceased
Geetika Sharma as Director, the President of Sundale
Educational Society, providing her BMW car, sponsoring
for her MBA Course and taking her alongwith him to
Singapore, can by no stretch of imagination be treated as
an act of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by which he
wanted to create circumstances for deceased Geetika
Sharma wherein she had no option but to commit suicide.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
337. Now, the next question arises as to why so many
favours were being extended to deceased Geetika Sharma
by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda even though deceased
Geetika Sharma at the time of joining MDLR Group in
2006 was only 12th class pass and was not having any kind
of experience in the field of Aviation or in Hospitality
Industry and even when the family of deceased Geetika
Sharma was not related to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal
Kanda in any manner. The testimony of PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Bansal provides the reason and throws light on the kind of
relationship that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was
having with deceased Geetika Sharma. PW48 Sh.Sanjay
Bansal has deposed on oath that he was known to accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and has admitted of sending two
SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma on 29.07.2010, when
she was employed with Emirates Airlines, Dubai and the
same were Ex.PW48/A.
338. To understand the nature of SMS sent by PW48
Sh.Sanjay Bansal, the two SMS dated 29.07.2010
Ex.PW48/A are being reproduced hereinbelow: --
" Madam, Extremely sorry to say that you r ruining
and spoiling the life of my beloved brother GG. He
doesn't have any interest in anything. Only talks
about u.. He cannot sleep without sleeping pills. He
is ready to leave everything including power,
money, assets, relatives nears and dears. I humbly
request with folded hands wat you need to resolve
and leave him.. U r intelligent enough to
understand.. Thanks..Sanjay Bansal.."
"I am extremely sorry if I hurt u and ur sentiments.

I didn't mean this. With ur permission can v meet
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
and resolve everything?? I think there is some
misunderstanding. GG doesn't have the courage to
speak wrong and ill against u or ur near and dears.
Am talking neutral. I think on meeting v can resolve
everything once and for all.. Not possible to resolve
thru messages.. Hope u too would appreciate my
approach.. Waiting for ur reply.."
339. From the aforesaid messages, it is amply clear that

the said messages were sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal on
behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to apprise
deceased Geetika Sharma regarding the emotional
condition of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda due to her
absence.
340. From the aforesaid SMS Ex.PW48/A, it can be
inferred that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was
attracted to deceased Geetika Sharma and this might be the
reason for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused
A-2 Aruna Chadha traveling to Dubai to request her to
rejoin MDLR, otherwise there was no reason as to why
CMD of a Company, who was owner of an Airline and had
interest in Hotels in Goa and Gurgaon, would travel to
Dubai to request a Cabin Crew employee i.e. deceased
Geetika Sharma to return to his company. The other
benefits, which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had given
to deceased Geetika Sharma, in the form of making her
Director, providing her BMW car, Sponsoring her fee for
MBA course, taking her alongwith him to Singapore,
making her President of Sundale Educational Society, even
though deceased Geetika Sharma had no experience in the
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
running of school, proves that said benefits were given by
accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda due to his liking or
attraction towards deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, it
cannot be believed that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda,
who due to his attraction towards deceased Geetika
Sharma, was providing her with so many favours and
benefits would have mens rea to create such circumstances
for deceased Geetika Sharma wherein she had no option
but to commit suicide or he by his conduct, direct or
indirect, had instigated deceased Geetika Sharma to
commit suicide.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
341. There are other circumstances, which create doubt
in the prosecution case.
342. It was the defence of accused persons that deceased
Geetika Sharma had not travelled to Mumbai on
03.08.2012 with her cousin PW11 Gaurav Sharma and had
stayed in the night in Mumbai with some other person with
whom she had physical relations and when this fact came
to be known to her parents, it led to a quarrel on her return
from Mumbai and, therefore, deceased Geetika Sharma
had committed suicide. The said defence was suggested to
PW12 Ankit Sharma in his cross examination by accused
A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma
denied about the same.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
343. However, the evidence, which has come on record
of PW11 Gaurav Sharma, who was the cousin of deceased
Geetika Sharma, supports the defence of accused persons
on preponderance of probabilities. Although PW11 Gaurav
Sharma has deposed regarding traveling by air with
deceased Geetika Sharma in the morning of 03.08.2012 to
Mumbai and he had further deposed that they had return
flight to catch on 03.08.2012 at 8.30 p.m., which was
missed by them due to continuous conversation of
deceased Geetika Sharma with PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia.
However, the said deposition of PW11 Gaurav Sharma
does not inspire any kind of confidence in the light of his
previous statement Ex.PW1/DA where no such statement
was made and in the light of ticket Ex.P-1 and non-
production of boarding pass with regard to return flight on
03.08.2012 at 8.30 p.m.
344. The ticket Ex.P-1 is only of deceased Geetika
Sharma showing departure at 7.05 a.m. from Delhi to
Mumbai in the morning of 03.08.2012 and return in the
morning of 04.08.2012 to Delhi at 8.05 a.m. The ticket
Ex.P-1 does not reflect any return flight at 8.30 p.m. and
neither name of PW11 Gaurav Sharma is mentioned on the
said ticket being a co-passenger of deceased Geetika
Sharma either in the departure flight of 03.08.2012 from
Delhi or on the arrival flight on 04.08.2012 in the morning
to Delhi. Further, PW11 Gaurav Sharma has deposed on
oath that they were waiting in the waiting area of Mumbai
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
Airport when PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called to
catch the return flight. This court can take judicial notice
of the fact that to get into waiting lounge at the airport, one
requires a boarding pass. However, neither boarding pass
nor return ticket of 8.30 p.m. on 03.08.2012 has been
produced on record to lend credence to the testimony of
PW11 Gaurav Sharma.
345. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma has deposed on oath
that deceased Geetika Sharma had not stayed with him on
the night of 03.08.2012 in Mumbai. Therefore, from the
evidence which has come on record, it is difficult to
believe that PW11 Gaurav Sharma had accompanied
deceased Geetika Sharma to Mumbai or had stayed with
her at Mumbai Airport on the night of 03.08.2012, due to
missing of the flight. Therefore, deceased Geetika Sharma
might have stayed with some other person in Mumbai,
which prosecution witnesses were trying to cover up by
deposing that deceased Geetika Sharma had spent the night
at the Airport on 03.08.2012.
346. Further, the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma having
some kind of physical relations prior to her death finds co-
orboration from the post mortem report Ex.PW1/B of
deceased Geetika Sharma. PW1 Dr.Sreeniwas M., who
was the Chairman of the Medical Board, which conducted
the post mortem on deceased Geetika Sharma, had in the
cross examination, expressed the possibility that
observation made in post mortem report Ex.PW1/B at
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
point "Z to Z1" regarding inflammation having reddened
base in the vaginal orifice might be due to sexual act or by
insertion of any object and observation made from point
"Z2 to Z3" regarding a healing mucosal tear sized about
0.6 cm. X 0.4 cm. with area of reddening at the posterior
part of anal orifice is suggestive of the fact that deceased
Geetika Sharma might have undergone anal intercourse.
Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 Dr.Sreeniwas M.,
post mortem report of deceased Geetika Sharma
Ex.PW1/B and having regard to the fact that testimony of
PW11 Gaurav Sharma regarding he staying with deceased
Geetika Sharma at Mumbai Airport on the night of
03.08.2012, is not believable, there is a strong possibility
that deceased Geetika Sharma might have stayed in
Mumbai with some other person and had physical relations
with him during her stay in Mumbai on the night of
03.08.2012.
347. Further, it has come on record that deceased Geetika
Sharma was friendly with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and
used to socialize with her. The friendship of deceased
Geetika Sharma with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was not a
casual one, as deceased Geetika Sharma used to share with
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha her personal secrets. In this
context, testimony of PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal is
relevant. It has come in the evidence of PW36 Dr.Vishakha
Munjal that in the month of March, 2012, deceased
Geetika Sharma had come to her clinic on reference made
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha for the purpose of abortion
as deceased Geetika Sharma was unmarried. Nothing was
brought out in the cross examination of PW36 Dr.Vishakha
Munjal to doubt her testimony. From the testimony of
PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal, it is proved on record that
deceased Geetika Sharma trusted accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha to this extent that she had shared about her
pregnancy with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and had sought
her help in getting the same aborted. Therefore, there is a
strong possibility that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha might be
knowing about the person, who was having physical
relations with deceased Geetika Sharma. The possibility of
accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and of accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda disclosing this fact to the mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma in a telephonic conversation on
03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 respectively, being the well
wishers of the family or out of jealousy, which led to a
quarrel between the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma
and deceased Geetika Sharma on her return from Mumbai
on 04.08.2012 and thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma
committed suicide, cannot be ruled out.
348. The regret expressed by deceased Geetika Sharma in
suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C that she made a
big mistake in her life by trusting accused persons might
be in reference to accused persons breaking her trust by
sharing about her abortion and her night out on 03.08.2012
in Mumbai.
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
349. It has also come in the cross examination of IO
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar by accused A-1 Gopal
Goyal Kanda that as per the Call Detail Record
Ex.PW49/A (colly) of deceased Geetika Sharma, around
06 calls were exchanged from the mobile number of
deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 out of which
three calls were that of her brother Ankit and regarding
remaining three calls, no investigation was made by him.
It was imperative for the IO to have investigated those
three calls, out of which two calls were from same mobile
number i.e. 9999497292 of duration of 192 and 155
seconds respectively, which were received by deceased
Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 as they were made prior to
her death and could have thrown some light on deceased
Geetika Sharma committing suicide. The possibility of
some person known to deceased Geetika Sharma calling
deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 and instigating
her, due to which she committed suicide, also cannot be
ruled out.
350. It has also come in the cross examination of IO
PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar by accused A-2 Aruna
Chadha that as per Ex.PW51/D (Annexure "A"), mother of
deceased Geetika Sharma had made calls to her deceased
daughter in the morning of 05.08.2012 between 2.18.50
a.m. to 2.31.47 a.m. The father of deceased Geetika
Sharma i.e. PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who was present in the
house, had not disclosed about these calls made by mother
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar
of deceased Geetika Sharma and the reason for making the
same. It is quite unusual for the mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma to have made telephonic calls to her
deceased daughter in the dead of night of 04.08.2012 /
05.08.2012 when deceased Geetika Sharma was sleeping
in the adjacent room and possibility of mother of deceased
Geetika Sharma inquiring about the well being of deceased
daughter due to previous quarrel, cannot be ruled out.
351. In the light of aforementioned discussion,
prosecution has failed to prove offence under Section 306
read with 120-B IPC that accused persons pursuant to
criminal conspiracy, had created such circumstances as
mentioned at serial nos. (a) to (y) of order on charge dated
10.05.2013 due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had no
option but to commit suicide and the possibility of
deceased Geetika Sharma committing suicide due to other
reasons, as discussed hereinabove also cannot be ruled out.
352. In the light of aforementioned discussion, none of
the charges framed against accused persons have been
proved on record. Accordingly, both accused persons are
acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC
r/w 466/471/468/469 IPC and 66 IT Act, 2000 and
under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC.
Announced in the open court
Dated: 25.07.2023
(Vikas Dhull)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-23
(MPs/MLAs Cases), RADC, New Delhi
SC No. 06/2019
PS: Bharat Nagar

MP Mla Case Delhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MP Mla Case Delhi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MP Mla Case Delhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPECIAL JUDGE

(PC ACT) (CBI)-23 (MPs/MLAs Cases), ROUSE

In the matter of :--

FIR No. : 178/2012

CNR No. : DLCT-11-000518-2019

Police Station : Bharat Nagar

Under Section : 306/506/201/120-

1. Gopal Goyal Kanda

GENESIS OF THE CASE

1. On 05.08.2012 at about 9.20 a.m., an information was

INVESTIGATION AND CHARGESHEET

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

140. It was submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State that in the

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-1

152. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-1

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-2

200. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-2

SUNDALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

REFUND OF MBA FEES OF RS.7,45,426/-.

TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN

291. Another circumstance, which prosecution is relying

"Gopal Goyal is a fraud. He always keep his

327. From the contents of aforesaid suicide note

"I am extremely sorry if I hurt u and ur sentiments.

339. From the aforesaid messages, it is amply clear that

You might also like