Point of Law: Section 107 of I.P.C reads as abetment of a thing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge SC/ST Court, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.79/2016(10/2013), whereby, charge under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the present petitioners.

3. Briefly facts of the case are that on 07.10.2012, on an oral information given by the complainant-Smt. Lehri Bai, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. It was mentioned that at around 03:00 P.M. her husband-Nanu Ram came to their agricultural field on motorcycle. After parking the motorcycle, when Nanu Ram came towards the agricultural field, Bheru & Kalu who are the immediate neighbours started assaulting her husband. The petitioners-Bheru & Kalu regularly indulged in altercations with Nanu Ram and assaults him. Her husband getting fed-up with the issue with the petitioners, told them that he would jump in the well and die. On this statement, the petitioners told her husband that if he wants to die tomorrow, die today. After this statement, the complainant’s husband jumped into the well along with motorcycle, resulting into his death. After this the police filed charge-sheet and after taking cognizance, the learned trial Court has framed the charge of Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioners and hence this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a close look at the facts in the present case clearly show that the petitioners never instigated or abetted Nanu Ram to jump into the well and to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even as per Section 107 of the I.P.C., if Nanu Ram himself has offered to jump in the well and the petitioners have stated that if he wants to jump tomorrow, jump today and die, will not amount to instigating or abetting Nanu Ram to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s State of M.P. reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1141 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh S/o. Hem Singh & Anr. V/s State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 358.

5. On the strength of the judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has committed an error while framing the charge against the petitioners under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the present revision petition may be allowed and the order of framing the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners may be quashed and set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the respondent have vehemently submitted before this Court that there is ample material on record to show that the petitioners have instigated or abetted Nanu Ram to jump into the well and commit suicide. She submits that the statement of Smt. Lahari Bai is clear and categoric to the effect that the petitioners were indulging into the altercations with her husband and were regularly assaulting him. Getting fed-up from the daily harassment of the petitioners, he committed suicide and, therefore, the reason for commission for suicide is nothing but instigation or abetment of the petitioners. She, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and prays that the revision petition may be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned order dated 27.08.2021.

8. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the petitioners are the neighbours of the complainant and her husband having their agricultural fields side-by-side. The exact wording which need to be taken note of in the present case is reflected in the verbal information given by the complainant on 07.10.2012 which reads