ORDER

1. This instant revision petition under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused assailing the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in S.T. No. 116/2019, whereby the charge under section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner/accused as there is absolutely no evidence to infer that the petitioner in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the petitioner had some altercation with the deceased immediately before committing suicide, it cannot be said that he abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since no ingredient of abetment is borne out from the facts of the prosecution case, learned trial Court committed an error in framing charge under section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there was any previous enmity and such altercation/harassment was meted out to the deceased on regular basis for quite long time which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. 2002 (2) JLJ 275=[(2002) 5 SCC 371] and contended that the petitioner has not committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the petitioner has played any part or any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in thecommission of suicide by deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, submitted that deceased had committed suicide by lying on railway track only after some altercation had taken place between the petitioner and deceased. Since the deceased committed suicide due to the conduct of the petitioner, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge under section 306 of the IPC.

4. The question which comes for consideration is as to whether the aforesaid allegation can be said to be a cause on prima facie basis for constituting an offence of abetment defined in section 107 of the IPC read with section 306 of the IPC.

5. Section 306 IPC under which the accused are charged reads as under :

"306 I.P.C. 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."

6. Dection 107 IPC sets out as to what constitutes abetment. The section reads as follows :

"107. 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 takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

7. A plain reading of the provisions of section 306 of IPC reveals that to justify framing of charge under this section, the following ingredients are necessary to co-exist:

(a) Death due to suicide.

(b) Accused abets the commission of suicide.

8. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP. (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under :

“6. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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 takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of t