To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, it must be proved that the accused's conduct directly instigated the victim to commit suicide, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed impugning the judgment & order dated 15.02.2021 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, District Pauri Garhwal, in Session Trial No. 02 of 2020, State Vs. Sheetal , whereby charge under Section 306, 386, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC were framed against the revisionist.

2. According to the prosecution, the deceased had written a suicide note which was recovered from the spot. In the suicide note it was mentioned that the revisionist and other accused persons are constantly black mailing the deceased and have duped him of Rs.15-16 lakhs in last four years and since his marriage with Ruchi Kapoor, they are constantly threatening to kill his son Ishan. After 2011 they are threatening the deceased to pay 5 lakhs, failing which they would kill his son. He further alleges that revisionist called the deceased on 1^st, 8^th & 9^th November, 2013, where she threatened to kill his son or to pay the huge amount of money. The deceased have further mentioned now he can no more bear this black mailing by the revisionist and her family.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said suicide note is a forged and fabricated document and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that the suicide note is genuine, still no offence is made out against the revisionist.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not allowing the application filed by the revisionist and that the FIR was lodged solely on the basis of the alleged suicide note of the deceased. It is further argued that even if the suicide note is taken at its face value, no offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, extortion under Section 386 IPC, or criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC is prima facie made out from the prosecution case itself.

5. It is not disputed that the deceased committed suicide on 27.11.2013. During the course of investigation, the call detail records revealed that the last communication between the deceased and the revisionist took place on 01.11.2013, 08.11.2013, and 09.11.2013. The said records further reveal that the revisionist only requested the deceased to live with her. There existed a gap of 18 days between the last call made by the revisionist and the date of suicide, thereby breaking the chain of proximate cause. It has also come on record that during the period between 2011 to 2012, a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/– was transferred by the deceased into the account of the revisionist in parts; hence, no act of abetment, as contemplated under the aforesaid sections, can be attributed to the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist and the deceased were in a love relationship since the year 2003–2004, and both their families were aware of the same. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2011 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Agra. The money (Rs. 1,50,000/- as recorded) paid by the deceased as maintenance to the revisionist was duly received; however, after 2012, no further amount was transferred by the deceased in her account.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that after coming to know about the second marriage of the deceased, the revisionist lodged an FIR against him under Section 376 IPC. Subsequently, the deceased filed