Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.6.2005 passed by the Judge Special Court (Sati Nivaran), Rajasthan, Jaipur and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he has framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that one Krishan Kumar committed suicide on 23.5.2004. About his death, his father, Lallu Lal Sain submitted a report to the police. On the basis of said report, a Inquest Report bearing NO. 9/2004 was chalked out. Fifteen days later during the course of inquiry, the police allegedly recovered a suicide note left by the deceased. According to the said suicide note, the deceased had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner but was unable to pay the same. In order to repay the said loan, he had further borrowed money from one Surendra Kumar Choudhary. However he was also unable to pay the said loan to Surendra Kumar Choudhary. Caught in a debt trap, the deceased decided to commit suicide. Eventually, the police registered a First Information Report against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC. Vide order dated 2.6.2005 the learned Special Judge framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before us.

(3). Mr. Satyandra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC can be framed only if the ingredients of Section 107 PC are present. An act to qualify as an abatement has to be done intentionally by the abettor. Merely because the petitioner was asking for the repayment of his loan is not such an act, which could be said to abet the suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are conspicuously missing. Hence, no charge could be framed fro offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.

(4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma has argued that by harassing the deceased for the repayment of the loan, the petitioner had created sufficient circumstances for the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide. Hence, he has supported the impugned order.

(5). We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record and the impugned order, which is before us.

Section 107 IPC reads as under:–

``107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation - 1. A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempt to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation - 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does not anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the the doing of that act.

(6). A bare perusal of the Section 107 IPC would reveal that the abetment is constituted by; (i) Instigating a person to do that thing; (ii) Engages with a person in any conspiracy for doing of that thing and (iii) Intentionally aids, a person for doing of that thing. Abetment implies certain activities on the part of the abettor. Therefore, it involves means rea in ensuring that the offence is committed. Thus, while framing a charge for offence under Section 306 IPC, the learned Court has to consider whether the abettor intentionally instigated or entered into a criminal conspiracy or aided the commission of the suicide. In case, there is no evidence to show that the abe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document