IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide for the offence of abetment under IPC 306. The judgment emphasized the need for intentional acts or instigation by the accused, highlighting the distinction between mere harassment and instigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner Sohni Devi is the mother of Sunil Kumar, who was married to Sapna, respondent No.2 in January 2016. Sunil Kumar and Sapna started residing separately from the petitioner Sohni Devi. The relationship between Sunil Kumar and Sapna Devi was not cordial. Sapna had made a complaint against her brothers-in-law and sister-in-law regarding the demand for dowry. The police called the parties and the matter was compromised. Suman Chaudhary, Ex-Pradhan and Prem Singh, Ward Member tried to patch up the matter between Sunil and Sapna; however, the situation did not improve. Sapna used to leave her matrimonial home for her parental home. Sunil used to say that he was residing separately from his family due to Sapna. Sapna had harassed Sunil Kumar mentally. Sarwan Kumar, the younger brother of Sapna took her to her maternal home on 2.2.2017. Sunil Kumar came to his home on 6.2.2017, at 4.00 PM and started talking to Sapna. He told her to return to her matrimonial home otherwise she would see the dead body of Sunil. Sunil came out of the room and started vomiting. He was taken to the hospital where he died. The death of Sunil Kumar had taken place due to the acts of respondent No.2. The police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and prepared a challan against Sapna which was presented before the Court.

2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused Sapna was residing separately in her parent’s home at the time of the death of Sunil Kumar. She had no nexus with the death of Sunil. There should be evidence of abetment suggesting that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of the witnesses were insufficient to show that there was instigation on the part of the accused. Mere harassment without any positive action will not constitute the abetment. The material on record even if unrebutted is insufficient to show any instigation. Hence, the learned Trial Court discharged the accused.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, two separate revisions have been preferred — one by the informant-complainant and the other by the State. In the revision preferred by the informant, it was asserted that the learned Trial Court could not weigh the evidence while deciding whether to frame the charges or not. The learned Trial Court had to see whether there were sufficient grounds for putting the accused on trial. Even a gross suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges. The entire evidence was discussed which was not permissible. Where the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was not left with any other option but to commit suicide, Section 306 of IPC is attracted. The accused was harassing the deceased. The deceased had tried to contact the accused many times, and call detail records corroborate this fact. Mere absence from the home was not sufficient to discharge the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set aside.

4. In the revision preferred by the State, it has been asserted that the statement of the informant is sufficient to frame the charge. The case was not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt at the stage of framing the charges. The acts of the accused should be sufficient to provoke the deceased to take his life. Evaluation of the evidence is not permissible at the stage of framing charges and the Court has to see whether the evidence existing is sufficient to put the accused to trial or not. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel for the accused.

6. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred