IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and the necessity for mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by which the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer to the effect that deceased Sandeep Kumar was married to petitioner on 15.02.2015. It was alleged that petitioner Sangita and her family members used to harass Sandeep Kumar. It was also alleged that petitioner Sangita was having extra marital affairs with distinct persons and being distressed, Sandeep Kumar committed suicide on 31.07.2019. It was also alleged that before committing suicide, the deceased left a suicide note giving reference of petitioner and her family members.

3. On this report, the police registered FIR No. 306/2019. However, after investigation, the police filed a negative FR that no case is made out against the accused Sangita. However, after receiving the FSL report, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner before the competent court and after arguments on charge, charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offence.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was serving in Army and resided separately in Army quarters whereas, the petitioner used to reside at her parents house. It is further argued that the army officials did not find any suicide note from the quarters and same was provided to the police by the family members of deceased. It is submitted that the police after thorough investigation had filed negative FR with cogent reasons and it was also mentioned in the FR that the deceased was having illicit relationship with one Pooja. Further a perusal of the alleged suicide note would go to show that no allegation whatsoever was made against the petitioner before putting his signature, however, after putting signature, three lines were added in suicide note mentioning that he is upset with the petitioner and her family members and they should be punished. It is argued that these three lines were written in different ink which shows manipulation. It is also argued that even in the FSL report, it has been mentioned that first part of the suicide note writing and signature marked as Q1 and Q2 shows similarities with standard signatures, however, there is no report with regard to three lines mentioned at the bottom which is marked as Q3 and Q4. Thus, the FSL report is silent with regard to the writing marked Q3 and Q4. Therefore, it is argued that there is no evidence whatsoever against the present petitioner for abetment to commit suicide, therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. State of M.P. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7284/2017 dated 26.07.2021 and case of State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 188.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant argued that the trial court after considering the entire evidence as well as statements of witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioner. It is argued that so far as the FSL report is concerned, it is submitted that the suicide note was sent to FSL and it has been mentioned in the FSL report that the disputed writing and signatures Q1 and Q2 shows similarity with the standard signatures and writing. If there is no mention with regard to writing Q3 and Q4, it does not mean that the writing was dissimilar. It is argued that the entire suicide note was examined by the FSL and a report was given. Further, the fact of harassment by petitioner is evident from the fact that the petitioner had filed FIR against the father of deceased and the