At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 9/2/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in ST No. 77/2020, by which the charge under Section 306 of IPC has been framed.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the charge-sheet for offence under Section 306 of IPC has been filed against the applicant on the allegations that the applicant was pressurizing the prosecutrix to enter into physical relationship and was also extending a threat that he would disclose the illicit relationship of the prosecutrix with him. When the husband of the deceased came to know about the said fact, then the prosecutrix committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although the police has filed the copy of CDR to show the mobile conversations between the deceased and the applicant, but there is nothing on record to show that the mobile no. 7724041619 belongs to the applicant.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the statement of the husband of the prosecutrix has been recorded, in which he has specifically stated that in spite of repeated objections by the husband of the prosecutrix, the applicant continued to harass the prosecutrix by repeatedly calling her on phone. It is further submitted that when this witness suggested that the applicant may touch the feet of the deceased, so that his apprehension of illicit relationship between the applicant and the deceased would get clarified, but, the applicant refused to touch the feet of the prosecutrix/deceased. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. It is submitted that it is clear from the statement of the witnesses that the applicant was continuously harassing the deceased by calling her repeatedly.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before considering the material available on record, this Court, finds it appropriate to consider the scope of enquiry at the stage of framing of charges.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-

"14. The Magistrate, in exercise of its power under Section 190 Cr.P.C., can refuse to take cognizance if the material on record warrants so. The Magistrate must, in such a case, be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., if any, do not make out any offence. At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable, or can be relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The Magistrate is not competent to weigh the evidence and the balance of probability in the case."

The Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th. CBI) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683 has held as under:-

"20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial."

The Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in 2010 CRI. L.J. 1427 has held a