Point of law : 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) in connection with an F.I.R. being C.R. No.A/11214032201643 of 2020 registered with Mandvi Police Station, Dist.Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 386, 270, 271, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

3. The facts emerging from the F.I.R. are referred as under:

3.1 The first informant is the son of the victim/deceased and engaged in the business of road construction and stone quarry, which is situated in Khanjroli Gam in Mandvi Taluka and is in the name of first informant’s father since 1982. As per the prosecution case, on 07.09.2020, at around 04:30 a.m. in the morning, the first informant got a call from his brother informing that the Manager i.e. Sandeepbhai has informed that his father was not found and, therefore, the first informant went to the quarry in his car and reached there by 05:45 a.m. and his brother also reached. Thereafter, the first informant on searching the quarry along with the Manager and other friends, a torch, slippers and mobile of the father were found. While searching for the father of the first informant, the Manager had informed him that at 03:45 a.m. in the morning, the father of the first informant had called the Manager and told him that when the first informant comes to the office, he will give him the note which is kept in the diary of his father. Therefore, the first informant asked that if the Manager had read the note to which, he denied and handed over the note to the first informant, which was written by the father of the first informant. It was written in the note that, father of the first informant had a property of 10,218 sq. mtrs. in Adajan, Surat which was sold to accused no.6 viz. Kishorbhai Bhurabhai on 17.03.2015, based on an agreement to sell on a note at Rs.24,03,88,687/- and accused nos.6 and 5 i.e. Kishorbhai Bhurabhai and Kanaiyalal Narola had paid worth Rs.18,00,00,000/- in cash to the father of the first informant on different dates and Rs.3,09,30,584/- by cheques of different banks. Accused no.6 was the owner of Star Group and on 17.08.2016, an income tax raid was made on his premises and based on the note of agreement to sell, there was a tax inquiry on the first informant as well. As a result of the tax inquiry, all the truth was told by the father of the first informant, however, accused no.6 had hidden names of his partners, and therefore, the liability of paying tax of Rs.8,49,49,020/- was on the head of the father of the first informant and further, due to sale deed on the original value, there was additional capital gain tax of Rs.4,80,00,000/- to be paid by the father of the first informant and there was total liability of Rs.13,00,00,000/- incurred on the father of the first informant.

3.2 The father of the first informant had talked to accused no.6, whereby he had assured to pay the same. Thereafter, on 30.01.2019, accused no.6 had sent a legal notice against the promise and statement given in the income tax, to which the father of the first informant had replied through his advocate on 04.02.2019. Thereafter, on 02.01.2020, at around 78 p.m., the police officers came to the house of the first informant and asked the father to come to the Police Station as Police Inspector (i.e. applicant-accused) had called him immediately to which the father of the first informant denied as it was late and his time to have dinner and told that he will come tomorrow. However, the police officials forced him to come and, therefore, the first informant along with his father went to the Police Station where, in the office of the Police Inspector, there were two persons viz. Rajubhai Lakhabhai Bharwad and Hetal Natvarlal Desai (i.e. accused nos.2 and 3), who started abusing the father of the first informant and by then accused no.4 viz.