Why Gopal Kanda was acquitted in abetment to suicide case

What were the allegations against Kanda and Chadha?

The prosecution accused Kanda and his associate of abetment to suicide, relying on the contents of Geetika’s note as well as telephonic conversations between the accused and the mother of the deceased.

It was alleged that in these conversations, the accused “levelled allegations against the character” of Geetika and asked her mother to send her to the office of MDLR to sign some documents.

According to the prosecution, the accused had forced Geetika to resign from MDLR, following which they kept up the harassment.

It claimed that after leaving MDLR, when Geetika went to join Emirates Airlines, both the accused issued a NOC with false signatures through Monal Sachdeva, an employee of MDLR, in order to make the deceased rejoin Kanda’s airlines in the future.

The prosecution thus said that the accused had thus forced Geetika to resign from Emirates Airlines as well. According to the prosecution, the accused used to become tense after receiving calls from the accused.

All the acts mentioned above amounted to harassment, instigation and abetment to suicide, as per the prosecution.

What did the court say while acquitting Kanda?

The Court held that the prosecution must prove that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It was held by the Court that instigation must be the proximate cause of suicide and if the deceased has time to reflect on the instigation before committing suicide, then it doesn’t amount to abetment to suicide.

“Mere naming” of the accused on the suicide note is not sufficient to hold the guilty accused for abetment to suicide, the Court held, saying that to hold the the accused guilty of abetment to suicide, “specific acts or instigation” by the accused which led the deceased to die by suicide must be mentioned in the note.

“… 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 Sharmashould commit suicide,” the Court said, referring to the contents of the suicide note.

The Court held that the deceased had resigned from MDLR to join Emirates Airlines voluntarily, and that there is no evidence to show that she was pressured. Moreover, the Court said that since Geetika left MDLR in 2010 and Geetika died in 2012, the incident was not proximate and could not amount to instigation.

Pointing out that the family of the accused and the family of the deceased had friendly relations, the court ruled out the argument that speaking to the accused caused Geetika stress. Flagging the favours that were extended to Geetika by the accused, the Court said “any sane and prudent person would not socialise or take benefits or favours from the very person, who creates stress and tension in his/her life.”

The court also disputed the claim that a forged NOC was issued by Monal Sachdeva, pointing to the fact that the prosecution did not call him as a witness, despite him being best placed in this case. Due to his non-examination, the Court found no evidence to suggest that a forged NOC was given to the deceased.

What happened in the leadup to Geetika’s death?

The court also pointed to loopholes regarding prosecution’s reconstruction of the events leading up to Geetika’s suicide.

The prosecution had said that Geetika had travelled to Mumbai with her cousin Gaurav Sharma, two days prior to her death, to attend a fashion show featuring her brother. Her cousin had claimed that they returned to Delhi together in the morning flight the next day.

The defence, however, argued that the deceased had travelled to Mumbai with some person who she had “physical relations” with and that this led to a quarrel with her parents when she returned from Mumbai. They identified this quarrel to be the real reason behind Geetika’s suicide.

On examining the airline records, it was found that while Geetika’s name was there on both the departure and the return tickets, her cousin’s name was not there on either of them. The Court, therefore, stated that the prosecution witnesses were trying to cover up the fact that the deceased might have stayed with some other person in Mumbai.

Moreover, as per Geetika’s call detail records, a total of six calls were exchanged from her mobile number one day prior to her death– three of these with her brother Ankit, and the remaining with another number, which was not investigated.

“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,” the Court held while flagging non investigation of the three calls.