A determined businessman of district Hapur, U.P. (the victim), hailing from a middle-class family and an alumnus of IIT BHU, has faced relentless police investigation, finding himself entangled in a three-year-long legal battle against false accusations and defamation in the society. Under section 156(3), a FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 808/2021 in connection to the tragic case of Vinay, a long-serving accountant in his firm, who left on 17.06.2021 because of his personal reasons.

Family members of Vinay claim that Vinay was coerced into writing a resignation letter and tragically took his own life just four days later, on 21.06.2021, under mysterious circumstances. The family's failure to call for a post-mortem and not informing the police about Vinay's demise leave significant questions unanswered.

Multiple investigations were carried out against the businessman to find any significant evidence. One of the investigation officers Mr. Shiv Kumar, invoking sympathy for both the accountant and his family, the reason of death is still a mystery. However, let us question and argue, even in the absence of substantial evidences, how the businessman can be accused of causing someone's suicide. Reported timelines add further intrigue to the case.

Despite a family member working in the same factory as Vinay, no concerns were raised when Vinay left his job, nor were there any questions after his tragic death. It is perplexing that an FIR was lodged, blaming the businessman, on 26.06.2021, without any prior apparent concerns from the family and submitted in the court under section 156(3).

Notably, between 17.06.2021 and 25.06.2021, despite another family member being employed at the same firm, there was a noticeable absence of concern about Vinay's job. An examination of the report, specifically line no.6, reveals a curious shift in the family's claims.

While they initially asserted that Vinay had been forced to write the resignation letter, a claim made in the same report suggests a mismatch in handwriting. This discrepancy raises significant questions about the consistency of the family's arguments.

A key witness detected by the family of Vinay in this case claims to have taken Vinay to the hospital, asserting that Vinay ingested poison due to threats from the businessman. The timing of this revelation, four days after Vinay's death, is concerning. One wonders about the motives and actions of the witness during this critical period. Furthermore, if the witness knew Vinay was taking poison, why did he not intervene to prevent it?

There's even a possibility that the witness might have been involved in providing the poison or threatening Vinay. The basis or evidence on which the witness claims that Vinay was harassed by the businessman is also unclear. Another puzzling aspect is the choice of Madhu Hospital, a private facility, where Vinay was taken and denied treatment. The witness, presumably aware of this, raises questions about why a nearby government hospital with a priority treatment facility was not chosen during such a life-threatening situation.

Now a final report has been submitted to the court by the investigation officer. In my opinion, these allegations against the businessman seem to be filed with the intention of defaming and harassing him, despite the lack of substantial evidence. It is improbable that a well-functioning firm, with a trustworthy accountant of 7-8 years, would suddenly force an employee to leave without reason.

The family's lack of questioning, especially from a family member working at the same firm, adds to the enigma. Statements from Vinay's family lack evidence from police investigations or post-mortem reports, making it difficult to ascertain if this is a genuine case of suicide or an attempt to malign the businessman intentionally.

Additionally, the absence of any interrogation with the businessman after the filing of the report raises concerns about the fairness of the process. These ongoing hassles jeopardize the businessman's ability to run his firm and earn a living. Trust in workers within the firm is eroded, posing significant challenges to the business.

This prompts a question for the court: Why have only statements been emphasized, while evidence remains largely absent?