The judgment emphasizes the legal definition of abetment and the requirement for evidence indicating instigation, aiding, or conspiracy to commit suicide.

R.P. Gupta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offence punishable under section 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST. No. 4/99 vide order dated 19.7.1999.

3. One Ashish Gupta, an ex-employee of G.K. Sales Corporation of which the petitioner No. 1 claims to be partner and petitioner No. 2 to be Sales Manager, committed suicide on 16.6.1998 at about 13:30 hours in his own house by consuming poison in the form of Sulphos tablets. He disclosed the reason why he is committing suicide in a suicide note left by him which stated that the petitioners were threatening to involve him in an offence of breach of trust in respect of Rs. 40,000/- of the firm which, allegedly, he had received in his capacity as Sales Officer on behalf of the firm, but, had not accounted to the firm or paid there. His assertion in the suicide note is that the amount was not due and he was being harassed and although he had taken employment in another firm, he feels so harassed that he had to do so.

4. On the basis of the suicide note the two accused were sent for trial and the Sessions Court had framed charges for offence u/s 306 IPC.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suicide note does not indicate abetment by the accused to comit suicide. Presuming no money was due from the deceased to the firm of which he was an employee, and it might have given threat that they would take action against him for misappropriation including penal action for the crime, it would not mean that they abetted the commission of suicide or instigated that he should commit suicide or in any manner aided his commission of suicide.

6. It is apparent that merely because there is a cause which a person feels sufficient for him to commit suicide as he feels he has no way out, of the difficulty, does not mean that the persons, who are said to be creator of that difficult situation, would be presumed to have abetted the offence. That is not the law. Abetment is defined in section 107 I.P.C. as instigating, aiding or entering into a conspiracy for commission of an offence. Aiding for commission of suicide is punishable u/s 306 I.P.C., although the commission of suicide is not an offence by itself. But, definition of abetment would applicable to the same as given u/s 107 I.P.C. There has to be some indication in evidence that there was aiding or instigating or conspiracy to commit suicide. Merely because there was a threat for prosecution (for misappropriation of certain money, even if the threat was unjustified), it would not be an offence of abetment for the suicide.

7. There are not cases of the same type as the suicide by a wife resulting from the cruelty of the husband. For that there is a statutory presumption introduced by section 113-A Evidence Act. But, that is not available for other cases.

8. This Court finds that there is no material whatsoever to indicate abetment by any of the accused in the commission of suicide by the deceased. The charge as well as the prosecution is quashed. The revision petition is accordingly accepted.

Petition allowed