The main legal point established in the judgment is that for abetment of suicide, the accused must have intended or reasonably foreseen that the victim would commit suicide as a result of their conduct.

1. The applicant who is the accused no.3 in Sessions Case No.568 of 2009 pending before the Court of Sessions, Pune, is aggrieved by the order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, rejecting the applicant's application for discharge as contemplated under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. There are two other accused in the said case, and they had also applied for discharge, but by the said order dated 23rd January 2012, which is a common order dealing with the discharge applications filed by all the accused, their applications also came to be rejected. The applicant has therefore, by the present revision application approached this Court, praying that the impugned order be set aside, and that be discharged.

3. As decided, by consent, the revision application has been heard finally at the admission stage itself.

4. I have heard Mr.K.M.Mhatre, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mrs.S.V.Gajare, learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned APP, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto which include the application for discharge and a copy of the impugned order, but also a copy of the entire chargesheet. I have also taken into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer.

5. The prosecution case, as is reflected from the chargesheet, may be stated thus:

Kiran Kalbhor (the deceased) was a driver. He had purchased one car, and had given the same for the use of the company of the applicant on contract basis. The deceased was getting a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- from the applicant as a consideration. Additionally, the deceased was employed by the applicant as a Supervisor in his office, and was getting an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards remuneration. The deceased went missing from 1st May 2005, and on 4th May 2005, his dead body was found on the terrace of the building where he had been residing. He was found to have died by consuming poisonous substance. Hrishikesh – cousin of Kiran Kalbhor – was the one who had taken him to the hospital. A wardboy in the hospital had given the articles belongings of Kiran to the said Hrishikesh. Among the articles that were handed over by the ward-boy to Hrishikesh, there were two chits written by Kiran for his father and the police. It was mentioned in the chits that the applicant and others had badly beaten him, alleging that he had committed theft, that the applicant had threatened him that the flat which was in the name of Kiran should be transferred by Kiran in the name of the applicant, and that some signatures of Kiran had been taken on blank cheques. That, Kiran felt humiliated on that account and being unable to bear the humiliation, he was committing suicide. On this basis, Chetan Kalbhor-brother of Kiran, lodged a report with the police on 6th May 2006 alleging commission of offence by the applicant, Manager Salim, Supervisor Dilip and one unknown person described as applicant's friend. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the applicant, one Dilip Dhotre (Accused no.1) and one Salim (Accused No.2), alleging commission of offences punishable under section 306 of the IPC and 506 II of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. The applicant and the other accused applied for discharge, raising a number of contentions. It was submitted that the deceased Kiran had been committing theft of diesel, and that he had even bribed the watchman of the applicant's company so that he should not reveal this to anyone. That the theft of deceased had come to light, and that, thereafter, the deceased had accepted his liability and agreed to compensate the applicant's company for the loss caused to it. It was contended that the suicide notes were not genuine, and could not be relied upon. It was also contended that there were a number of aspects which created doubt about the genuineness/truth/bonafides of