IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere allegations of humiliation without concrete evidence do not suffice to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC; instigation or intentional aid must be clearly demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

Heard learned counsel Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2) appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special P.P. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal appearing on behalf of the State.

2. At the outset, it appears that the opposite party No.2, Poonam Kumari, who is the informant in the present case, choose not to appear in this case, even after the substituted service of notice, i.e. the paper publication, as evident from the previous order passed by this court in this case, particularly, the order passed on 19-12-2023, where it is found that the last indulgence was given to the opposite party No. 2 by way of last chance to appear in this case, but despite the order dated 19-12-2023, the informant-opposite party No. 2 did not appear in this case.

3. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 18-09-2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Session Judge-XI, Dhanbad in S.T. No.123 of 2019, arising out of Gomia G.R.P.S. Case No.06 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2008 dated 24-07-2008 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

Argument on behalf of the Petitioner:

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegations as set out in the fardbeyan of the informant Poonam Kumari was that her husband Satyendra Choudhury (since deceased) was a science teacher since last one year in Bharat Singh Public School, Ambedkar Colony, Phusro, and on 23-07-2008, her husband went to the school, but thereafter he did not return to his house and on 24-07-2008 at about 5 AM in the morning, her relative Dinesh Kumar Singh informed to the informant that her husband committed suicide and his dead body was lying along the railway track. It has further been submitted that after receiving the said news, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband.

5. It has further been alleged by the informant that since last 3 to 4 days of the incident, her husband was mentally disturbed and on query, he disclosed to her that he was being tortured and humiliated by the petitioner Nalini Naire, because he did not know the English language and because of such torture and humiliation caused by the petitioner to her husband, suicide was committed by him and it was claimed by the informant that her husband was compelled by the petitioner to take the extreme step of putting on end to his life by committing suicide.

6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no ingredients of abetment have been substantiated from the evidences collected during the course of the investigation to constitute the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner and the petitioner being the Principal of the said school, Bharat Singh Public School, Ambedkar Colony, Phusro, was performing her official duty and at the time of the death, the deceased was a science teacher and no incident has been narrated by an iota of evidence to make out a case under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner.

7. It has further been submitted that the entire allegations against the petitioner are based on the suicide note, ‘which is said to have been recovered from the pocket of the deceased’ and the seizure list was prepared accordingly by the police, but from the perusal of the said suicide note, it is not found that the deceased had narrated and disclosed any incident of principal causing him torture and humiliation which led him to commit suicide except ‘bald accusation’.

8. Further, it has been submitted from the statements of the witnesses examined by the I.O. during the course of the investigation vide para 21 Bhikha Chatterjee and vide para 22 Hari Mohan Prasad who did not support the case of prosecution as both of them stated that they had never heard about the torture, humiliation or harassment of any kind caused by the petiti