the basis of a compromise between the parties. This indicates that the land dispute, which is alleged to be the reason for harassment, was already settled. The present FIR was filed on 05.05.2025, about 15 days after the incident, and no satisfactory explanation for this delay has been provided. It is also not disputed that there was no suicide note of the deceased. It is further important to note that at the time of merg intimation and during the inquest proceedings, the complainant did not raise any suspicion against the appellants, nor did he state that the deceased was being harassed or instigated by them. If there had been any such continuous harassment or instigation, it would have been naturally disclosed at the earliest stage or reflected in some material. However, no such material is available on record. There is also no indication that the deceased had communicated any such allegation either through a suicide note or to his family members. Further, none of the witnesses examined so far have stated that the appellants instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. At the most, the material indicates that there was a land dispute and that the appellants were asking the deceased to vacate the land. It is also pertinent to note that the present appellants were neither the purchasers nor parties to the alleged sale deed executed by the wife of the deceased, namely, Jubaro Bai. Additionally, no objection has been raised by the counsel for the objector/complainant- Santram to the prayer made by the appellants. In these circumstances, the material on record is not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.
