The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence to prove abetment of suicide, and the significance of authenticity in the evidence presented.

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.

Counter affidavit and two supplementary affidavits filed by the respective parties are taken on record.

2. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2016 u/s 306 IPC, Police Station- Muradanagar, District- Ghaziabad .

3. Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State and Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. Perused the record.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was the tenant of the house, while the deceased was landlord and it is said that the applicant was guilty of abetment, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. Further submission is that the prosecution evidence does not bring forth the necessary ingredients of abetment and the facts and circumstances are such which fall short of proving that the applicant either instigated the deceased to commit suicide or abetted the same. Further submission is that the primary evidence, which has been made the basis to implicate the accused-applicant in the crime is an alleged suicide note left by the deceased in which the only thing mentioned was this that the deceased was feeling so perturbed and harassed because of the applicant that he was constrained to commit suicide and that the applicant should be held responsible for the same. Contention is that sensitivity of a human being depends upon a number of factors and human traits including the level of emotions of a particular person play crucial role in this regard. The people may commit suicide even on a trifling reason just as they may withstand the pressure of strongly upsetting circumstances. In the present case, there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant. The dispute was not such which may, in all probability, be said to be sufficient to drive the deceased to commit suicide. There has to be tangible evidence in order to prove that a particular man instigated the victim to commit suicide. Further submission is that it is true that there may be cases where the direct evidence may not be available and there may be circumstances which may demonstrate that there were such impelling circumstances created by accused which were sufficient to drive any reasonable man to commit suicide. But the evidence available on record is very deficient in proving any such conduct of the applicant. Even if the contents of the suicide note are taken such, it is difficult to hold that the applicant actually instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. But much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the applicant in order to show that the suicide note and the signatures made therein are not actually that of the deceased. It was pointed out that the case diary would indicate that the Investigating Officer made an attempt to get some hand writings and the signatures of the deceased in order to get the same compared with the original suicide note but despite his efforts and visits which he made to the family members of the deceased, he was not provided necessary hand writings or signatures of the deceased for comparison. Learned counsel for the applicant has shown to the Court a part of the case diary wherein the visits of the I.O. are mentioned and also where inability for some reason or the other to provide the same has been shown by the wife of the deceased. Further submission is that actually there were also some proceedings under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. for which the deceased had submitted his bail-bonds. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-5, which is a paper relating to such proceedings, which contains the signatures of the deceased. Counsel has tried to emphasise that the signatures made therein on the very face of record are looking different from the signature on suicide note. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report of