To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct causation linked to the act of suicide, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No.54/2022, dated 22.03.2022, registered at Police Station Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant had gone to Anandpur on 10.03.2022 with the Truck bearing registration No. HP-24D-1272. He returned to his home on 12.03.2022 at 10:30 pm. He was informed by Anil Kumar that Savitri Devi (since deceased) had called him and told him that petitioners - Sanjeev Kumar, Kala Devi and Anjana Kumari had given beatings to her. They also threatened and abused her. The informant was told by his father at about 07:00 am that Savitri Devi had been missing since 13.03.2022. Search was made for Savitri Devi, but she could not be found. The matter was reported to police, and a missing report was registered on 14.03.2022. The dead body of Savitri Devi was found on 22.03.2022. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted, and a report was issued stating that the hanging pattern was symptomatic and consistent with partial suicidal hanging. The viscera were preserved and sent for chemical analysis. However, no alcohol or poison was detected in the viscera. As per the final report, the death had taken place due to strangulation caused by compression of the neck. The petitioners had abused and threatened Savitri Devi, and she committed suicide due to the threats and abuses. Hence, the charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have approached this Court, asserting that they are innocent and were falsely implicated. The petitioners had a verbal altercation with the deceased over keeping the woods, which lasted for less than five minutes. Petitioner No.1 intervened and took the other petitioners inside the house. The deceased also went to her home. She left her home on 13.03.2022. A missing report was lodged on 14.03.2022, and the dead body was recovered on 22.03.2022. The time lapse between the incident and the recovery of the dead body rules out the abetment of suicide. Police did not conduct a proper investigation. A false case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC was made out against the petitioners. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police do not show that the petitioners had beaten, abused and threatened the deceased. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The dead body recovered by the police did not belong to Savitri Devi. No DNA analysis was conducted. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners had abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply. The contents of the FIR were reproduced in the reply. It was asserted that the informant had specifically stated that Savitri Devi committed suicide due to a quarrel with the petitioners. A supplementary charge sheet has been filed, which shows that the DNA profile obtained from the tooth of Savitri Devi matched the DNA profile of Subhash Chand. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.2 denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that a thorough investigation was conducted by the police, and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. There is sufficient material before the Court to connect the petitioners to the commission of a crime. The deceased remained in shock after 12.03.2022. There is no material contradiction in the statements recorded by the police. Therefore