Framing charges under Section 306 I.P.C. requires only a presumption of involvement, not definitive proof, relying heavily on the evidentiary weight of disputed documents, such as suicide notes.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The instant revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2024 whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur has framed charge against the applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 95 of 2024 (State v. Ashok Singh). Another order under challenge is dated 22.10.2021 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur (‘Magistrate’) had taken cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant.

BRIEF FACTS

3. As per the case of the applicant, on 02.03.2020, a ward boy of District Hospital, Gorakhpur informed the police that a dead body was kept in mortuary. On his information, police reached on the spot and found a suicide note in the pocket of the deceased namely Deen Dayal Singh, real brother of the applicant. Accordingly, opposite party No.2, Incharge of Police Chowki Beniganj, Gorakhpur registered a First Information Report dated 02.03.2020 mentioning that during inquest proceedings, one handwritten suicide note and two Aadhaar Cards were found in the left pocket of the pant of the deceased and on perusal of the suicide note, reason of death was indicated as harassment caused by the applicant to the deceased and cause of death was found to be ante-mortem injuries caused by train.

4. Based upon investigation, a chargesheet was submitted before the Court of Magistrate who took cognizance in the matter by order dated 22.10.2021 under Section 306 I.P.C. Later on, charge was framed under the same Section by the Sessions Court order dated 24.01.2024. These two orders have been assailed in the instant revision.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised following submissions:-

(i). Framing of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is patently illegal as ingredients of abetment, as provided under Section 107 I.P.C., do not stand attracted;

(ii). The suicide note is not a reliable piece of evidence even at this stage, inasmuch as, it runs in nine (9) paragraphs and, just after two lines of the first paragraph, signatures allegedly made by deceased Deen Dayal Singh stand reflected but, thereafter, further language has been incorporated, which, in itself, shows that the suicide note was prepared for the purposes of the case and was planted by the prosecution at some subsequent stage;

(iii). Even assuming without admitting the genuineness of the suicide note, the contents thereof reflect that the deceased was inclined to settle his property among his family members and nothing has been indicated as to in what manner the applicant ever abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

(iv). Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) submitted its report dated 03.08.2021 indicating that for satisfactory examination of the disputed signatures, atleast 10-15 signatures of the deceased were required and though communication was sent in that regard, till today, no such forensic examination report has come on record of proceedings and, therefore, there was lack of evidence so as to necessitate framing of charge under Section 306 I.P.C.

(v). First paragraph of the suicide note indicates that the applicant and father of the deceased were the persons responsible for his death, whereas father of the deceased had already died on 15.12.2019, i.e. four months before death and hence, the entire suicide note is liable to be discarded;

(vi). Neelam Singh, widow of deceased, when contacted by the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’), twice declined to get her statement recorded; firstly