Abetment to suicide charge: Complainant failed to prove his case Khemka, says court

In an abetment of suicide case against IAS officer Ashok Khemka, the court of civil judge Amit Verma has pointed out in its detailed order that complainant Nitin Poswal has "miserably" failed to prove his allegation Khemka had abetted his father Jaswant Poswal's suicide.

The court also said Khemka had, in fact, given an "opportunity" to the terminated housing board clerk Jaswant Poswal to get back to job.

Poswal had been missing since February 16, 2007. His son, Nitin, had filed a complaint in the court for registering a first-information report (FIR) against Khemka for abetting his father's suicide. Though the complaint was dismissed on February 17, the detailed order in the case has been made available recently.

The judgment said, "...the document-Mark C1 relied upon by complainant (Nitin Poswal) reveals that the [sic] his father Jaswant Poswal was terminated from service due to the reason that he was suffering from "alcohol dependency syndrome" and was unfit for performing official duties."

In the last paragraph of the termination order, the accused (Khemka) even afforded an opportunity to the complainant's father (Jaswant Poswal) to approach the department for joining back [sic] his services, in case he produces a fitness certificate and he passes the prescribed examination, thus the termination order cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal."

The judgment further pointed out, "After hearing the contentions, it transpires that it is the complainant's (Nitin Poswal) version that the accused humiliated his father and instigated him to commit suicide.

However, when the evidence on record is carefully scrutinised, it reveals that although the complainant (Nitin Poswal) has asserted that his father committed suicide but he failed to placed [sic] on record the death report of his father (Jaswant Poswal) or any other document which could show that his father is not alive.

The complainant has even not got examined any independent witness who could have said that the complainant's father is actually missing as alleged in the complaint."

In the application before the court, Nitin alleged that his father was sacked at the behest of Khemka as his father was part of the union of workers and from backward caste.

He had also alleged that his father had gone to meet Khemka on February 16, 2007, at office where the father was insulted, as he was told by tubewell operator Balwinder Singh. But Khemka had left the charge in housing board by that time. Despite number of hearings, Nitin could not get recorded the statement of tubewell operator.