Abetment of suicide under IPC necessitates proof of direct or indirect acts by the accused compelling the victim to commit suicide, which must be supported by credible evidence.

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 and others , whereby charge under Section 306, 386 read with Section 34 & 506 of IPC were framed against the revisionists.

2. According to the prosecution, the deceased had written a suicide note which was recovered from the spot. It is alleged therein that the revisionists and other accused persons had threatened the deceased to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/– failing which they would kill his minor son. It is further alleged that the revisionists and the co-accused had earlier extorted money from the deceased between the years 2009 to 2013, and thereafter again demanded Rs.50,00,000/– with a threat to kill his minor child.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists 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 revisionists.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not allowing the application filed by the revisionists 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 co-accused (wife of the deceased) took place on 01.11.2013, 08.11.2013, and 09.11.2013. The said records further reveal that the co-accused (wife of the deceased) only requested the deceased to live with her. It has also come on record that in the year 2011, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred by the deceased into the account of the revisionist no.1 (sister-in-law of the deceased); hence, no act of abetment, as contemplated under the aforesaid sections, can be attributed to the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that, to frame a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish, prima facie, through cogent and credible material on record, that the accused had performed any overt act or had indulged in any conduct which directly or indirectly instigated, provoked, aided, or abetted the deceased in committing suicide.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there is not even a single incriminating material brought on record which, even prima facie, would suggest that any act of the revisionists had the effect of compelling or instigating the deceased to take the extreme step of ending his life. He has further argued that in the present case, there exists no genuine suicide note attributable to the deceased, and, apart from that, none of the essential ingredients of abetment, as envisaged under Section 107 IPC, are discernible or attributable to the conduct of the applicant. Therefore, He has submitted that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionists, and the impugned order rejecting the d