JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- accused challenging the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby charge has been framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, though in the operative part Section 305 IPC has been mentioned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the essential ingredients of abetment, as contemplated under Section 306 IPC, are not made out from the material placed on record. It is contended that there is no allegation of instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy attributable to the petitioners and the entire case rests upon vague allegations of alleged illicit relations. It is further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, it does not disclose any proximate act on the part of the petitioners which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore, the petitioners deserve to be discharged.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that the material collected during investigation, including the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses, clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is contended that the deceased was subjected to humiliation and mental harassment on account of allegations involving the petitioners and co-accused and that such conduct cumulatively led to the commission of suicide. It is further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and not to meticulously appreciate the evidence.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.

5. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a roving inquiry into the merits of the case or to weigh the evidence. The test to be applied is whether the material on record discloses a strong suspicion or a prima facie case against the accused. Even grave suspicion found on the material placed by the prosecution is sufficient for the purpose of framing of charge. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is limited and interference is warranted only when the order suffers from patent illegality or where no offence is made out even on a bare reading of the material on record.

6. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the deceased Gytari Sharma, who was working as a teacher, allegedly committed suicide by coming under a train. The prosecution case, as reflected in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., shows that petitioner No.2 Kamalpreet Kaur leveled allegations of illicit relations against the deceased involving the present petitioner No.1, which allegedly resulted in humiliation and insult to the deceased. There are also allegations that the petitioners were involved in circumstances giving rise to such allegations and that the accused persons acted in concert, thereby creating a situation which led to mental distress of the deceased. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence. Whether the acts attributed to the petitioners would ultimately amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC is a matter to be adjudicated upon after the parties lead evidence during trial.

7. The act of instigating or aiding the commission of suicide essentially relates to appreciation of evidence and determination of its probative value, which is impermissible at the stage of framing of charge. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners cannot be evaluated in detail at this stage.

8. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot warra