The Public Prosecutor's Office has the power to impel criminal action, a situation forbiddento the complainant, in certain legislations. In an investigation the prosecution closes a case, under the cover of suicide; however, the private accuser maintains the homicide thesis and manages to pursue the criminal action on their own. A fight begins that only the forensic sciences can stop, because at the moment its importance is undeniable as an instrument for criminal investigation. But in certain cases, the forensic investigation may be scarce or nonexistent, which means that the crime remains unpunished or that a person is condemned for a poor and not very rigorous investigation. This paper aims to determine if there was a real forensic investigation to close the case as suicide and if the evidence collected was enough to enervate the principle of innocence of the defendant, as well as highlighting how important is the protection of the crime scene, and that elements that are vital to clarify the crime, are not ignored. On the other hand, we analyze the preeminence that was given to the scientific proof so that this criminal case was considered suicide and not homicide, and how it was mandatory not to limit the investigation to the autopsy information, and that instead, its validity should have been supported by other evidence to determine the true legal medical etiology of the crime.