For charges under Section 306 IPC, mere harassment is insufficient; there must be direct evidence of incitement to commit suicide.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 3^rd February, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No.96 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, whereby, an application dated 21^st September, 2022 moved by him demanding discharge from the alleged offences was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such decision is legally untenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. As made to reveal from the record, the petitioner and other accused persons are alleged of having committed offences punishable under Section 306 and 120-B read with 34 IPC with regard to an incident, for which, a report was lodged on 9^th December, 2019 alleging therein that they are responsible for having abetted the death of the deceased, namely, late husband of the informant. In fact, the deceased committed suicide as revealed from the FIR at Annexure-1 series. The reason behind the death is attributed to the petitioner and co-accused persons. According to the informant, the co-accused persons conspired against the deceased, who at last committed suicide by hanging. The details of the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are described in the FIR. The names of the accused persons, who allegedly tortured the deceased, have been named therein. After the alleged incident was reported, Koraput Town P.S. Case No.319 dated 9^th December, 2019 was registered under Sections 306 read with 34 . The chargesheet was filed for the alleged offences besides under Section 120 -B against the accused persons including the petitioner. As per the chargesheet dated 17^th February, 2020, the accused persons combinedly harassed the deceased and it continued for six years and finally, he committed suicide. The individual role played by each of the accused persons has been revealed in the chargesheet. In fact, the chargesheet was filed keeping the investigation open as some other accused persons could not be arrested and also awaiting receipt of expert evidence. The petitioner like the other accused persons alleged of having played a part in the death of the deceased, hence, he is chargesheeted. After the chargesheet was filed, the petitioner moved the application seeking discharge but it was denied vide Annexure-2 with a decision of the learned court below dated 3^rd February, 2025 and on the premise that at the time of framing of charge, it was not required to evaluate the evidence so as to reach at a conclusion whether the case is to end in conviction or acquittal and the materials on record are sufficient to frame the charge against him as well. Being aggrieved of, the petitioner has filed the revision.

3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMC No.1176 of 2020 disposed of on 9^th July, 2021 but while allowing withdrawal of the same, he was granted the liberty to raise all such defence at the time of framing of charge for its consideration in accordance with law.

4. Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

5. The impugned order at Annexure-2 has been challenged on the following grounds, such as, (i) the order dated 3^rd February, 20205 under challenge is illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials on record; (ii) the learned court below committed material illegality and improperly exercised its jurisdiction while denying discharge of the petitioner and as such, there has been a glaring miscarriage of justice; (iii) though the prosecution has not furnished sufficient