By _shalini oraon
Sushant Singh Rajput family’s decision to contest the CBI’s clean chit to Rhea Chakraborty.
—
A Closure Denied: Unpacking the Sushant Singh Rajput Family’s Stance Against the CBI’s Clean Chit
The Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report, effectively giving a clean chit to Rhea Chakraborty in the abetment to suicide case surrounding the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, was meant to be the final chapter in a long and painful legal saga. For the public and the media, it signaled the end of a case that had captivated the nation. But for Sushant Singh Rajput’s family, it was anything but closure. Their decision to contest the CBI’s findings is not a mere legal formality; it is a profound reflection of a grief compounded by suspicion, a narrative they feel remains incomplete, and a justice system they believe has failed to address their core allegations.
To understand the family’s persistence, one must first look beyond the narrow legal definition of “abetment to suicide” and into the broader tapestry of grievances they have consistently put forth. Their case against Rhea Chakraborty was never solely about a single instigating act on June 14, 2020. It was a cumulative narrative of alleged manipulation, financial exploitation, and professional isolation that, in their view, created an environment of despair leading to their son’s tragic demise.
The Core of the Allegation: A Narrative of “Death by a Thousand Cuts”
The family’s original FIR, filed by Sushant’s father, K.K. Singh, in Patna, painted a picture of systematic alienation and financial drain. Their primary allegations, which they feel were not fully investigated, include:
1. Financial Exploitation: This was a cornerstone of their complaint. They alleged that over a period of months, approximately ₹ 15 crore was siphoned from Sushant’s accounts. They pointed to transactions for seemingly unrelated business expenses, expensive gifts, and control over his financial decisions as evidence of Rhea exploiting his wealth. While the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated the money trail, the family contends that the CBI failed to adequately link this financial strain to his mental state, viewing it not as theft in isolation, but as a contributing factor to his distress.
2. Professional Isolation: The family alleged that Rhea and her associates deliberately cut Sushant off from his long-standing team, including his long-time manager and staff who had been with him since his early days. This isolation, they argue, left him vulnerable and dependent, stripping him of his professional autonomy and a trusted support system. They believe this calculated move was crucial in establishing her control, an aspect they feel was overlooked in the CBI’s focus on the immediate cause of death.
3. Mental Health and Misrepresentation: The family has consistently disputed the narrative of Sushant suffering from severe mental health issues like bipolar disorder, as claimed by Rhea and her doctors. They acknowledge he may have been in a fragile state but allege that Rhea misrepresented his condition, mismanaged his medication, and even, as per their lawyer’s claims, administered him unauthorized drugs. This forms the basis of their belief that his mental state was not just a pre-existing condition but was actively exacerbated.
The CBI’s Report: A Clash of Legal Thresholds and Familial Grief
The CBI’s closure report, a detailed voluminous document, essentially concluded that the evidence collected was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rhea Chakraborty had abetted Sushant’s suicide. Legally, abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. The CBI found no direct evidence—no suicide note naming her, no conclusive proof of instigation on the day of the incident—that could meet this high legal standard.
This is the crux of the disconnect. The CBI operated within the rigid confines of a specific criminal charge, requiring a direct, provable link. The family’s case, however, is built on a circumstantial and cumulative narrative. From their perspective, the CBI investigated a tree but missed the forest. They see the clean chit as a validation of Rhea’s entire conduct during her relationship with Sushant, which they find unacceptable.
Key reasons for their contestation include:
· Dismissal of Circumstantial Evidence: The family believes the CBI gave insufficient weight to the powerful circumstantial evidence—the financial documents, the testimonies about his changing behavior, the emails about his career—that, when woven together, build a compelling case for their version of events.
· The Question of “Aiding”: Their legal team argues that even if there was no active “instigation,” creating an environment of financial pressure and professional isolation, while potentially mismanaging his mental health, constitutes “intentional aiding” under the law. They feel this nuanced interpretation was not adequately pursued.
· Perceived Incomplete Investigation: There are lingering questions the family feels were never answered. Why were certain witnesses not examined more thoroughly? Why were certain financial trails not followed to their logical conclusion? This perception of an incomplete investigation fuels their belief that a different outcome was possible had the probe been more exhaustive.
The Unhealed Wound: Grief, Public Spectacle, and the Quest for Vindication
Beyond the legal arguments, the emotional and psychological context is paramount. The Rajput family’s grief was played out on a national stage. Their loss was co-opted by media frenzies, political point-scoring, and toxic social media wars. In this cauldron, their pursuit of justice became a crusade.
Contesting the clean chit is, for them, a way to reclaim their narrative. Accepting the CBI’s report feels, to them, like betraying their son’s memory and accepting a version of events they fundamentally disagree with. It is about ensuring that Sushant is remembered not just as a man who died by suicide, but as a victim of a larger set of circumstances—a narrative they are determined to officially record, even if a conviction becomes unlikely.
Furthermore, their fight has become symbolic. For many, Sushant’s case represented the outsider versus the powerful Bollywood elite. His family, in continuing their legal battle, embodies the resilience of a family seeking accountability against a system they perceive as stacked against them. A clean chit for Rhea is, in this symbolic framework, a victory for the very forces they believe contributed to his downfall.
Conclusion: A Legal Battle for Moral Victory
The Sushant Singh Rajput family’s decision to contest the CBI’s closure report is a complex interplay of legal strategy, profound grief, and an unyielding quest for vindication. They are navigating the chasm between what the law can technically prove and what they, as a grieving family, know to be their truth. While the CBI may have found the evidence legally insufficient for a specific charge, the family’s allegations paint a broader picture of alleged exploitation and manipulation that they feel has been whitewashed.
Their fight is no longer just about securing a conviction for Rhea Chakraborty; it is about challenging the official record, ensuring every aspect of their complaint is heard in court, and finding a form of solace that the CBI’s report denied them. In a case that has been defined by more questions than answers, the family’s opposition to the clean chit is their final, resolute attempt to write what they believe is the true ending to their son’s tragic story. The legal odds may be against them, but for Sushant Singh Rajput’s family, this is a battle they feel compelled to fight, not just for justice, but for peace.