ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed in S.T. Case No. 119 of 2019 arising out of Bindapathar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 509 of 2018, registered for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the FIR has been lodged on 18.06.2018, alleging therein, this revisionist has love affairs with the deceased-daughter of the informant and upon the revisionist's instigation she has committed suicide. It has further been alleged that after commission of the suicide, this accused had come to the house of the deceased and took away the mobile phone and other materials of the daughter of the informant. The police after investigating the crime, have found the same to be true and accordingly charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to which cognizance has been taken.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

“In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.”

Further, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 (4) East Criminal Cases 1 (SC). The paragraph-28 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

“28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

Further, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others. The paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below:

“11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide letters written by the deceased girl and the statements recorded during the investigation. Even according to the case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are parents of first respondent shouted at the deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on 05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on 06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on record, we are also of the view that the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents. The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents. There was no goading