Point of Law: Trial Court has not considered abetment contained in Section 107 IPC while framing charge by passing impugned order and thus committed a blatant illegality and contravened provisions of law, this Court does not find any substance in his contention that charge ought not to have been framed against petitioner since prosecution has failed to adhere to ingredients of abetment contained in Section 107 IPC.

ORDER :

The instant revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2011 framing charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of merg intimation given by one Narayan Prashad Nishad regarding commission of suicide by deceased Nandlal Nishad on 07.07.2011 by hanging in the kitchen of his own house, FIR No. 232/11 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420/34 IPC was registered by Head Constable Jainath Singh in police station Kharora District Raipur. It is alleged that the applicants herein formed a Company in the name and style of Astha Goat Farming Pvt Ltd. in which the deceased was also one of the agents. Allegedly, the applicants used to collect money through the deceased for being invested in the afore-stated company, which would be doubled within a certain period of time. While assigning the task of collection, an assurance was put to the deceased of being provided an Alto Car as and when he achieved the target of Rs. 25,00,000/- plus a monthly royalty of Rs. 12,500/-. However, as the sequence of events unfurls, after the deceased achieved the said target by toiling day in and day out, the applicants instead of providing the benefits to the deceased, gave the same to their own relatives and thereby put the deceased at peril. Another accused Naveen Sahu though not before this Court but very much named in the FIR, is alleged to have grabbed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the deceased for providing a job of Patwari to his nephew but neither did he provide the job nor return the full amount of money taken by him. Out of the collection of Rs. 3,00,000/-, just Rs. 1,70,000/- were given back to the deceased whereas remaining Rs. 1,30,000/- were pocketed by himself. Not only this, when the deceased approached said Naveen Sahu for return of the money, he instead of fulfilling his genuine demand, used to threaten him of being booked by the police. This act of the accused persons caused a serious turbulence in the mind of the deceased driving him to take an extreme step of ending his life by hanging. The ordeal faced by the deceased at the hands of the accused persons is explicit from the death note seized by the police from the pocket of his own pant. After the postmortem being performed on the body of the deceased and completion of investigation including recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants herein and one Naveen Sahu for the offence under Sections 306 and 420/34 IPC.

3. Subsequently, on 18.01.2012 the trial Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record framed the charge against all the accused persons under Sections 306 and 420 IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18.01.2012, the applicants have preferred the present revision for setting the same aside.

5. Counsel for the applicants submits that even if the contents of the FIR, suicide note and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value, the offences under Sections 420 and 306 IPC are not made out against the applicants. Further, referring to the provision of Section 107 IPC, learned counsel for the applicants submits that none of the ingredients enshrined therein is attracted on the basis of which they can be held guilty under Section 306 IPC. According to the counsel for the accused/applicants, the material collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to make out a case of cheating and abatement under Section 420 and 306 IPC.

6. The contention put forth by the counsel for the applicants challenging framing of charge was that there is no material on record that the applicants in any manner whatsoever had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his co