The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of abetment under IPC Section 107 and the significance of the accused's actions in influencing the deceased's state of mind, as well as the circumstances leading to frustration and difficulty in continuing existence.

JUDGMENT :

Applicant Rajesh Singh Bhandari is in judicial custody in FIR No. 01 of 2020, under Section 306 of IPC and Section 66/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Revenue Police Station Ghandiyaldhar, District Tehri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

2. The deceased was married with Deepak Singh Bhandari. On 22.05.2013, she was found dead. It was a case of hanging. The brother of the deceased lodged an FIR, suspecting the role of her husband Deepak Bhandari on the ground that her husband would not give time to the deceased, had neglected her.

3. During investigation, it was revealed that, in fact, it is the applicant, who was in contact with the deceased through some social media platforms. They had exchanged photographs. The applicant had procured some obscene photographs of the deceased also. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (“the IO”) would collect the chat between the deceased and the applicant, which according to the IO, was in the nature of harassing the deceased, which made her to commit suicide. The mobile phone of the deceased and the applicant both were sent for forensic examination and it confirmed its authenticity.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not named in the FIR; the brothers of the deceased, who have been examined at trial have not stated anything against the applicant; they have levelled allegations against the husband of the deceased that it is he, who had deserted, left and ignored the deceased, and, it is he, who would beat the deceased. It is argued that there is no evidence against the applicant and the applicant is in custody for last one year. This is not a case, which may attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC because, by no means, the act could be attributed to the applicant that, it is he, who had abetted the suicide. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which inter alia defines three mode of abetment, namely, conspiracy, instigation and intentional aid.

6. In the instant case, the State along with counter affidavit has filed the WhatsApp chat between the deceased and the applicant. Along with supplementary counter affidavit, the State has particularly filed the chat between the deceased and the applicant of 08.06.2020.

7. It is argued that even if the chat is taken into consideration, it is two days’ prior to the death of the deceased.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the WhatsApp chat dated 08.06.2020, which has been filed by the State along with supplementary counter affidavit speaks in volume. Some of the chats have been read extensively, to argue that it reveals that the applicant, by forwarding obscene video of the deceased, compelled her to commit suicide.

9. The trial is underway. The informant, Prem Singh Pundir has been examined as PW1 and his brother, Dharam Singh has been examined as PW2. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided but to the extent of appreciating the arguments, the matter may be examined with a caveat that any observation made in this stage shall not have any effect in the trial.

10. The act of abetment can only be inferred by the attending action of the deceased. In fact, it is a kind of reading the mind of deceased, as to what transpired in her mind, when she ended her life. More so, it is an act of reading the mind of the deceased, as to who influenced her to commit suicide. In the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & another, (2012) 9 SCC 460; has inter alia held that “All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to investigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.”

11. It is true that in the FIR, the brother of the deceased has raised doubts that perhaps it is the conduct