For abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, mens rea and instigation are essential. Mere marital discord and insults do not constitute sufficient grounds for abetment. The trial court committed illegality by denying discharge without clear evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by revisionists is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

3. By way of instant revision following prayer has been made:-

" It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Sessions Judge Auraiya rejecting the discharge application under section 227 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 828 of 2023 (State Vs. Rachana Devi and others) arising out of case crime no. 683 of 2022 under section 306 I.P.C. Police Station-Dibiyapur District-Auraiya., so that justice may done otherwise the revisionist shall suffer irreparably.

It is further prayed that his Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the revisionists in Sessions Trial No. 828 of 2023 (State Vs. Rachana Devi and others) arising out of case crime no. 683 of 2022 under section 306 I.P.C. Police Station-Dibiyapur District-Auraiya, pending before District and Session Judge Auraiya, during the pendency of the present Revision, otherwise the revisionists shall suffer an Irreparable loss and injury."

Factual matrix of the case

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.11.2022 against revisionists and one another under Section 306 IPC and according to FIR, marriage of the son of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with revisionist no.1 about 7 years before and after marriage revisionists used to insult his son. It is further mentioned in the FIR that revisionist no.1 lodged a false case against O.P. No.2 and others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and thereafter she had left her matrimonial home and started leaving with revisionist nos. 2 and 3 but subsequently both the parties settled the dispute, however, revisionist no.1 did not drop the case.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR, on 20.06.2022 revisionist no.1 turned out O.P. No.2 and his wife from her matrimonial home but subsequently she permitted them to live in her matrimonial home. As per FIR, on 08.11.2022, revisionist no.1 called revisionist nos. 2 and 3 and her brother in her matrimonial home and badly insulted O.P. No.2 and thereafter O.P. No.2 and his wife again left the house and on 12.11.2022, O.P. No.2 received information that revisionist no.1 is making quarrel with his son and on 13.11.2022, he received information about the death of his son. According to FIR, son of O.P. No.2 committed suicide due to the abetment of revisionists.

6. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against revisionists and after submission of charge sheet, court concerned took the cognizance and thereafter case was committed to the court of sessions. Before trial court, revisionists filed discharge application but their discharge application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.10.2023. Hence, instant revision.

Submission advanced on behalf of revisionists

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that revisionist no.1 is the wife of the deceased while revisionist nos. 2 and 3 are his mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. He further submitted that as per allegation, due to abetment of the revisionists, son of O.P. No.2 i.e. husband of revisionist no.1 committed suicide by hanging himself but allegation of abetment levelled against them is totally false.

8. He further