ORDER

1. This revision is directed against order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in S.T. No.42/2019, whereby charge of the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the petitioner.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.2.2019 at about 9.45 PM when the applicant was going to sleep after taking the meals, at that time he heard some noise of jumping in his under construction house and he found that Jeevan (since deceased) has entered into the house of the applicant and when the applicant shouted, at that time Jeevan had run away from the spot.

3. Thereafter the petitioner informed the police and the police came and asked the petitioner to lodge a report against the Jeevan (deceased) regarding the same. Thereafter the police was searching Jeevan and police went to his house. It is alleged that on 14.2.2019 Jeevan consumed some poisonous substance and died. In his dying declaration he has made allegation against the present petitioner regarding abetment to commit suicide, therefore, a case under section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, challan has been filed. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 23.7.2019, charge of the offence under section 306 IPC was framed against the petitioner. He stood the trial accordingly, as he denied the imputation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence of abetment to commit suicide would be made out against him. According to him, the petitioner did not abet the deceased in any manner for committing suicide. It has been contended that there is no evidence available on record to prove abetment as defined under section 107 IPC against him. For this, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP [2002 (2) JLJ 275 = AIR 2002 SC 1998] Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [AIR 2005 SC 1775] and a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. [2002(4) MPHT 140].

5. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State and complainant have submitted that there are sufficient material suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that no interference with the order framing charge is called for as a significant progress in the trial has already been made.

6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the case diary.

7. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of sections 306 and 107 IPC which read 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.

***

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.

Explanation1.— A person who, by willful misre-presentation, or by willful 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.

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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

8. As per the definition given in section 107 IPC, abetment is c