Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24803) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24803]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 768/2005
Ashok Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Mandi,
Aadampur, Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section
397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 22.07.2005 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, bhadra in Sessions
Case No. 41/2004 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by
the complainant Ram Kumar on 01.06.2004 before the Police
station Bhirani stating therein that his nephew Krishan Kumar was
working as an Accountant at a cloth shop of Shiv Kumar Godara,
Adampur. On 30.05.2004, he went to the cloth shop on his
motorcycle but did not return. On 02.06.2024, another written
report was presented before the SHO, P.S. Bhirani alleging that on
29.05.2004 his nephew Krishan Kumar looked stressed out. Upon
inquiry, he told the complainant that owner's shop was running in
loss and the owners were pressing him to recover credit money
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (2 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
from the customers. He told that the owners had threatened him
that if he fails to recover the credit money, they will get it
recovered from his family members. On 30.05.2004, he went
missing, thereafter, on 01.06.2024, his dead body was recovered
from a canal near Dungarana village. It was alleged that the
owners Sandeep and Ashok had killed his nephew.
On this report, the police registered FIR for offence under
Section 306 IPC and started investigation. After due investigation,
the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions from where it was committed
for trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The learned Additional and District
Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC.
Hence, this present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
no offence under Sections 306 IPC is made out against the
petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the
petitioner in commission of said offence. It is argued that the
deceased Krishan Kumar was mentally frustrated and committed
suicide. There is no evidence that the accused petitioner had
threatened or abated commission of suicide. The ingredients of
Section 107 IPC i.e. intentionally aiding, by an act or omission is
clearly missing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner
instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and
therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (3 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
out. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing
charge for offence under Sections 306 of IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the
deceased in his suicide note has specifically named the present
petitioner that he harassed and threatened him, therefore, he is
committing suicide. Further it is settled proposition of law that at
the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred
under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. Therefore, the trial court
has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under
Sections 306 IPC.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the
allegation against the present petitioner is that he harassed and
threatened the deceased Krishan Kumar, due to which he
committed suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306
IPC reads as under :--
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (4 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
(Secondly)-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In case
of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (5 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the
person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act)
intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (6 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] position he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
In the present case, the recovered suicide note explicitly exonerates the petitioner, indicating solely that he was the reason behind the deceased's decision to end his life. Crucially, the note does not contain any direct allegations of harassment, threats, or instigation by the petitioner with the intent to induce the deceased to take such a drastic step. The absence of specific accusations or evidence establishing any coercive or malicious conduct on the part of the petitioner diminishes the likelihood of their culpability in the deceased's demise. Furthermore, the content of the note suggests that the deceased may have been experiencing personal or psychological distress independent of the petitioner's actions.
In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought not be charged under Section 306 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to provide any evidence that the petitioner explicitly provoked, goaded, or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The actions attributed to the petitioner, such as instructions to do his job, were aimed at intimidating the deceased, but there is no material on record to suggest that these actions directly led to the deceased taking his own life. Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of abetment, which involves active encouragement or provocation to commit suicide. In the absence of such evidence, the petitioner's actions cannot be classified as abetment under the law. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be charged under Section 306 IPC. The alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". For an action to be (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (7 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] considered as abetment under Section 306, it must be such that it compels the deceased to commit suicide. This compulsion must arise from actions or behavior of the accused that leave the deceased with no alternative but to take such a drastic step. Allegations of threatening or intimidation, without clear evidence of how these actions directly or immediately led to the suicide, are insufficient. The courts have emphasized that the proximity of the accused's offending action to the suicide is crucial--such actions must be recent or immediate enough to be seen as the direct catalyst for the victim's decision to end their life.
If there is no evidence showing that these acts directly influenced the deceased's state of mind to the extent of causing suicide, then the accused cannot be held liable for abetment under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, mere allegations without a proximate causal connection between the actions of the accused and the suicide would not suffice to establish a charge under this section.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (8 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (9 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
"Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (10 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (11 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC 4994 observed as under :-
"This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (12 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."
In the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC 1020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
...
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (13 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
...
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (14 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.
...
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
"11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (15 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law."
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows:-
"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45) "45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable."
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (16 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC."
In the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2025 SC 568, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether accused could be charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of the deceased. The court reasoned that the evidence, including a suicide note and audio recordings, did not demonstrate that accused had instigated or intended to instigate the suicide, as required by law. The court emphasized the need for a higher threshold of proof for such charges and criticized the casual application of Section 306 by authorities. the relevant para are:-
"18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the Accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (17 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
..................
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 Indian Penal Code [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 Indian Penal Code appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed Accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court Under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24803] (18 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005] trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a motive to abet the suicide. If there is no proof of any active role played by the accused in the events leading up to the suicide the Court may set aside the charge.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be said that petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned o the order dated 22.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No. 41/2004 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner to the extent of offence under Section 306 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 13-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)