Mohali court acquits man in father’s suicide case after family changes statements

A local sessions court in Mohali has acquitted a 27-year-old man who was accused of abetting his father's suicide. The court ruled that the prosecution could not prove that the accused had harassed, threatened or encouraged his father to take his own life.

The judgment came after key family members, including the complainant, withdrew the allegations they had reportedly made during the police investigation. During the trial, they told the court that the victim had been under financial stress and that family money problems, rather than harassment by the accused, were the reason behind the suicide.

After examining all the evidence and witness statements, the court found that there was not enough proof to hold the accused guilty. As a result, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Family members changed their statements

The case began on July 30, 2025, after a man was found dead by suicide at a village stadium. According to police, he was found hanging from a pipe.

During the investigation, police claimed that before taking his life, the man had written the name of his younger son on his legs and also on a wall inside the stadium. Investigators believed these writings blamed the younger son for his death.

Based on this claim, police registered a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for abetment of suicide.

The First Information Report (FIR) was based mainly on the statement of the victim’s elder son.

According to the police version, the elder son had accused his younger brother of regularly assaulting their parents, consuming drugs and alcohol, and mentally troubling their father.

Police alleged that these actions had pushed the victim to take the extreme step.

However, the situation changed completely when the case came before the court.

During the trial, the elder son denied making the statement that the police had relied upon while filing the case.

He told the court that his thumb impressions had been taken on blank papers and that he did not make the allegations mentioned by the police.

He also denied seeing any writing on his father's legs or on the stadium wall.

Instead, he told the court that his younger brother shared a good relationship with their father.

The victim’s wife and son-in-law also changed their earlier statements.

Both denied giving the statements that were attributed to them during the police investigation.

They told the court that the family had been facing serious financial difficulties and believed that this financial pressure had led the victim to end his life.

Court found lack of evidence

The court also carefully examined the other evidence presented during the trial.

One village resident told the court that he had seen writings blaming the younger son.

However, during questioning, he admitted that the victim’s family had never complained to him about any harassment by the accused.

The court also noted important weaknesses in the investigation.

According to the judgment, the alleged writing on the stadium wall was never photographed by the police.

This meant there was no proper record of what was supposedly written there.

The court also pointed out that there was no evidence proving that the writing found on the victim’s legs was actually written by the victim himself.

Without handwriting verification or other supporting evidence, the court said this claim could not be treated as reliable proof.

The investigating officer continued to support the prosecution's case during the trial.

However, the court observed that the investigating officer’s testimony alone was not enough when all the important witnesses had withdrawn or denied their earlier allegations.

The judge stated that criminal cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had intentionally harassed, threatened or encouraged his father to die by suicide.

Since the evidence was not strong enough to prove guilt, the court decided to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Sessions Judge Atul Kasana acquitted the 27-year-old man of the charge under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with abetment of suicide.

The judgment highlights the importance of reliable evidence and consistent witness testimony in criminal trials.

Courts rely not only on police investigations but also on evidence presented during the trial. When key witnesses change their statements and supporting evidence is found to be insufficient, the prosecution may fail to establish the charges.

The court did not make any findings about the exact reason for the victim’s death beyond noting the family's testimony that financial hardship was a major factor.

With the acquittal, the criminal proceedings against the accused have come to an end, unless the judgment is challenged before a higher court.

The case also underlines the legal principle that an accused person cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves the charges with clear and convincing evidence. When serious doubts remain, the law requires that those doubts be resolved in favour of the accused.