The court emphasized the need for grave suspicion against the accused, proper explanation of evidence, and the intention or instigation for abetment of suicide in determining whether a prima facie case was made out for framing charges against the accused.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of which the respondents herein have been discharged for the offences under Sections 306/406 RPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Naveen Kumar Honda and Mst. Anu Bala came from Batala, Punjab and stayed at Broadway Hotel at Jammu in one room. On 19.07.2007 both of them consumed poisonous substance aluminum phosphide in the hotel room and committed suicide. The alleged suicide committed by these persons is attributed to the respondents, who hail from Batala and Amritsar respectively. The two suicide notes were recovered from the hotel room where the suicide was committed by the victims. These two suicide notes coupled with the statements of the witnesses are the mainstay of the prosecution case for implicating the accused under Sections 306/406 RPC. It has been projected in the challan that the business transaction between the accused and the victim-Naveen Kumar Honda and the harassment caused to the victim Mst. Anu Bala by the accused Suman Mohan Bazaz led to the suicide of the victims.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the financial harassment caused by the accused to the victim Naveen Kumar Honda forced them to commit suicide in the hotel room. The suicide notes were recovered from the place of occurrence, prima facie, a case is made out that the accused are responsible for the suicide of the victims and are liable to be charged for offences under Sections 306/406 RPC.

4. The petitioner-State has challenged the impugned order dated 19.01.2009 on the following grounds: -

(a)The order suffers from material illegality and irregularity in the manner that the Court at stage of framing of charges has appreciated the evidence collected during the investigation. The weight and relevance of suicide notes have been scrutinized. The respondents are named in the suicide notes as persons responsible to create the situation. There is enough material connecting the respondents to the commission of offences and sufficient to frame the charges. The Government has sanctioned the filing of the Criminal Revision vide No. 726-LD(ACQ) of 2009 dated 06.04.2009.

5. I have carefully gone through the grounds taken in the memo of revision petition and gave patient hearing to rival contentions.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it may be noted that sections 268 and 269 of Cr.P.C. relate to the trial of cases before the Court of Sessions. It is to be seen whether prima facie case has been made out for framing charge or not. It is apt to quote sections 268 and 269 of Cr.P.C. as under:-

“268 Discharges:

If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused , he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

269 Framing of Charge:

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which –

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may frame charge against the accused and by order, transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate competent to try the case, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate to whom a case may have been transferred shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure provided for the trial or warrant cases instituted on police report,

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court , he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub section (1) the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the