ORDER

1. By the instant revision, the applicants are questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 9.3.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, District Sagar in Sessions Case No.41/2022, whereby the Court below has framed charge under section 323, 294, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants.

2. Counsel for the applicants submits that looking to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, no case for the offence under section 306 of IPC is made out and at the most offence could be under sections 323 and 294 of IPC inasmuch as in marpeet took place between the applicants and deceased, he received simple injuries, but there was no occasion for him to commit suicide and the applicants did not abet him to do so. He submits that the Court below has committed illegality in framing offence under section 306 of IPC against the applicants. The charge-sheet has been filed in which charge of section 306 of IPC is framed but no reasons have been assigned by the Court as to how offence of section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants. There is no material available on record to indicate that accused persons have ever abeted the deceased for committing suicide and merely because some marpeet took place between the parties does not mean that the ingredients of section 107 of IPC are available and in absence of those requirement offence of section 306 of IPC is not made out. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court reported in 2002 (3) SCC 650 (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife-Smt.Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not a handy work of a man with sound mind and sense. Smt.Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C before Investigation Officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July 1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July 1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306 of IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunkened condition. It is a common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25th July 1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The charge sheet dated 2nd July 2001 framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora in Sessions Trial No.469 of 1998 for an offence under section 306 IPC and the order of the High Court under challenge are hereby quashed. The appellant is on bail. His surety and bail bond shall stand discharged.

3. The Supreme Court in case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and