At the stage of framing charges, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required, and even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition, under Section 397 read with 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/accused assailing the order dated 18/12/2019 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No.76/2019, whereby the charge under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 21/4/2019 one Rajesh Dangi (since deceased) committed suicide by ending his life on a Railway track. It is alleged that he was having an affair with the petitioner, who used to extort money from him under threat of false implication in a case. As such, she harassed Rajesh to such an extent that he was left with no other option except to take the extreme step.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner from the FIR and statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. There is no evidence on record to suggest that she had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of section 107 of the IPC are missing in the present case. Accordingly, it is submitted that the trial Court has committed grave illegality in framing charge under section 306 of the IPC against the present petitioner and the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra , the prayer has been opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer. He invited attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, it has come that petitioner was in relationship with the deceased. She used to take money from him and pressurize him for giving more money. She was also opposing his marriage and used to threaten him of implicating in a case. Under such circumstances, Rajesh had committed suicide. It is submitted that the petitioner was instrumental in harassing Rajesh to such an extent, that he has ended his life. As such, the trial Court has rightly framed charge under section 306 of the IPC and no indulgence is warranted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as under :-

' 306. Abetment of suicide. 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."

'Abetment' is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads as under :-

'107.Abetment of a thing.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.

Explanation 1.A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

7. T he Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :-

''35.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT o