The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to be sustainable, there must be clear mens rea and an active or direct act by the accused to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide. Mere harassment or differences in a relationship do not necessarily constitute abetment under the relevant provisions of the Code.

Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.

1. By invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short "the Code") calling in question the impugned order dated 19.06.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, District Gwalior in S.T. No.218/2012 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (in short "the Penal Code") was framed against the petitioner.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.01.2012 at 22:45 o'clock Dr. D.R. Sagar Civil Hospital Dabra informed at Police Station Dabra that a woman named Bhagwati Valmik has been brought in the hospital in dead condition. On this information, a Merg No. 3/2012 was registered. During Merg enquiry, it was found that deceased-Bhagwati has died because the petitioner was having illicit relation with wife of Prakash Valmeek of Badoonkala. Because of this reason petitioner used to beat and harassed the deceased-Bhagwati. Six months before the death of the deceased the petitioner beat the deceased by means of lathi by which hand of the deceased got fractured. Thereafter the petitioner demanded Rs.One Lac, on refusal the petitioner told to kill the deceased. Because of all these reasons the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter, offence under Section 306 of the Code has been registered against the petitioner and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. After receiving the case on committal, Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Code are not fulfilled and no iota of evidence is available on record to implicate the petitioner. He further submitted that learned Trial Court has erred in law in framing charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code while no material evidence available on record to prove the fact that the petitioner has abated or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To Bolster his submissions counsel relied on the judgment of Hariom Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 (1) MPLJ 195, Santosh Vishwakarma and another Vs. State of MP (Now CG) reported in 2004 (3) MPHT 57 (CG), State of M.P. Vs. Ganesh Ram reported in 1997 (II) MPJR 163, Dayalan Babu & another Vs. State reported in 2011 CRLJ 359, Mahendra Singh and another VS. State of M.P. reported in 1995 AIR SCW 4570, Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 2045, S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 and M. Mohan Vs. State reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238.

4. Learned PP for the respondent/State has fully supported the impugned order passed by the Lower Court and submitted that there is prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioner for framing the charges under Section 306 of the Code. He further submit that Smt. Geetabai, Anand Kumar and Mohan are respectively mother and brothers of the deceased have categorically stated in their statement that the deceased was depressed and disappointed as petitioner was having illicit relation with one Meena. Hence, learned PP prayed for dismissal the petition.

5. Firstly I would like to deal with the relevant provision of Sections 306, 107 and 109 of IPC.

Section 306 - Abetment of suicide Code reads as under:

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 107 - Abetment of a thing reads as under:

A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission lakes place in pursuance of that conspir