To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be direct incitement or actions compelling the victim to commit suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The revision application is filed by the applicant (Accused No.1) in connection with Crime No. 50/2015 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against rejection of the discharge application Exhibit No.6 filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The factual matrix of the case for disposal of the present revision application is as under;

Shri Kishor Tawade has lodged a report alleging that when he was present on duty on 27/03/2015, one Sheikh Shakil Ahmad Gulam Dastgir gave a report, he is the owner of the Swagat Guest House and room No. 12 was obtained by the deceased Naresh Dattarya Yemsanwar, aged about 41 years, resident of Sayatkharda, Tah. Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. He has closed the door of this room and thereafter, he consumed a poison and committed suicide. The door of the room was broken and thereafter, the inquest panchanama was drawn. During the inquiry, with the said suicide, the investigating officer has seized five chits from one envelope and the said envelope was addressed in the name of Police and it was kept on one tile. During the investigation, it further revealed that the present applicant and the deceased entered into an agreement to purchase the agricultural field and the present applicant obtained money as well as golden ornaments from him and not executed agricultural land and also not returned the amount, as well as the golden ornaments and therefore, he committed suicide. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

5. After completion of the investigation, the present applicant has filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, which came to be rejected. The said application is filed on the ground that there is no nexus between the act of suicide and the abetment at the hands of the present applicant. In fact, there is no material to show that the present applicant has either instigated, abeted or aided the deceased to commit suicide. However, the learned Sessions Court has not considered the same and rejected the application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, he submitted that absolutely there is no proximity between the two acts the agreement of sale was executed in the year 2011, whereas the deceased has committed suicide in the year 2015. Thus, there is no nexus between the two acts. He has also invited my attention towards various statements of the witnesses and submitted that none of the statement discloses that what type of abetment was at the hands of the present applicant, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show the nature of abetment at the hands of present applicant. Thus, prima-facie case is not made out against the present applicant, and therefore, he be discharged from the discharge from the act.

7. Learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that at the time of framing of charge, strong suspicion is also sufficient to frame the charge. Whether there was a requisite mens rea or not is a matter of evidence. Over all contentions shows that the applicant created certain circumstances, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. At the stage of framing charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out with the facts emerging therefrom taken at there face value disclose existence. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during the investigation is sufficient to frame charge and therefore, no interference is called for.

8. In support of the application, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on decision of this Court in Criminal Application No. 502/2015, wherein the FIR against the co- accused is quashed observing that the deceased committed suicide and there is no proximity between the two acts. There is no active act or direct act committed by t