1. Trial court framed charges under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide — High Court quashed the charge in a revision petition. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : S.N.Phukan
State Of Haryana
Versus
Surinder Kumar
Case No. : 1125 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/15/99
Charges for abetment of suicide cannot be quashed at the framing stage based on preliminary facts; the issue of whether abetment occurred must be determined through evidence presented during the trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Quashing of charge - High Court quashed charge on the ground that suicide occurred 20 days after accusation of theft - Held: High Court not justified in quashing charge at the stage of framing charges - Whether suicide was a result of abetment is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The trial court framed charges against the respondent for the offence of abetment of suicide. The respondent challenged this in the High Court via a revision petition. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the charge, reasoning that the suicide took place 20 days after the respondent was accused of stealing gold.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not justified in quashing the charge at the stage of framing charges by holding that the suicide was not a result of abetment.
Issues: Whether the charge for abetment of suicide could be quashed at the stage of framing charges based on the timeline of events without evaluating prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of whether a suicide was a result of abetment is a factual matter that must be decided based on the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial, rather than being decided at the stage of framing charges.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent challenged the framing of charges, contending that the suicide was not a result of abetment due to the time elapsed since the accusation. (Para 4 )
3. High Court erred in quashing the charge at the preliminary stage; the existence of abetment is a matter of evidence to be decided during trial. (Para 4 )
4. Determination of abetment in suicide cases requires evaluation of evidence during trial and cannot be summarily decided at the stage of framing charges. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Trial court directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. (Para 5 )
6. Can a charge for abetment of suicide be quashed at the revision stage based on the time gap between the accusation and the suicide?
No. The court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the charge at that stage, as whether the suicide was a result of abetment must be decided based on the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial. (Para 4 )
7. At what stage should the involvement of an accused in an abetment case be determined?
The involvement of the accused should be decided on the basis of evidence presented before the court during the trial, although the accused may apply for appropriate orders regarding their involvement at an appropriate stage. (Para 4 , 5 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) LEAVE granted.
(3) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(4) ON the basis of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the police statement, the trial court framed charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The respondent challenged framing of the charge by filing a revision petition in the High Court. It was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the suicide was committed 20 days after he was accused of stealing 10 gm of gold. In our opinion the High Court was not justified in quashing the charge at that stage holding that the suicide was not as a result of abetment by the respondent. Whether it was so or not will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence which the prosecution may present before the Court.
(5) WE, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The trial court will now proceed with the case in accordance with the law. It will be open to the respondent to apply to the trial court to seek an appropriate order in respect of involvement of the respondent at an appropriate stage.
