1. Heard both the parties finally at the motion stage.

2. The petitioner has preferred this revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of the CrPC, challenging order dated 26.9.2017, passed by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 430/2017, wherein charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence under section 306 of the IPC.

3. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that Amit @ Ambe Chourasiya committed suicide on 1.3.2017 at about 1:30 pm. His post-mortem report reveals that he died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. He left a suicide note in which he has alleged that he is committing suicide due to compulsion. He had obtained loan from the accused persons namely, Manish Dubey, Kanti Sonkar, Akash Gupta, Golu Sonkar and Laxmi @ Neetu RÁwani. Because of their harassment for non-payment of loan, the deceased Amit @ Ambe hanged himself and committed suicide.

4. After the report at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, investigation was made and charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other accused persons for offence under section 306 of the IPC r/w section 3 of the Rin Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 1939.

5. On perusal of the police diary, it is found that the deceased died due to ante-mortem hanging. The witnesses reveal that the deceased was harassed for non-payment of the loan amount by the accused persons, culminated into the commission of suicide.

The suicide note left by the deceased reads as under :

^^vkSj ckck iku okyk esa nqdku [kqyh uk dkj.k dkyh dkj.kksa ds dsgrk gSa jksrs gq, vkiuh tku ns jgk gwa

t; ekrk nh

esa vkius ikik ekEeh dks vkSj 2 HkkbZ vkSj eka tSlh Hkkoh dks okgqr pkgrk gwa vki yks yksx jksuk ekr esjh dkle gS

vEcs

esa , [kkr ,eŒihŒ Fkkuk vkserh ds uke yh[k jkgk gw esa cgqr gh ektcwjh esa vkiuh tku ns jgk gwa esa vkiuh tku nsuk ukgh pkgrk ij ektcwjh esa ns jkgk gaw eq>s dkjts okys ijs'k dkjrs gS vkSj eq>s tku ls ekjus dh nke nsrs gS dqN lke; igys eSaus bu ls dkjt yh;k Fkk bZu yksxks ds uke gS ¼ekuh'k nqcs½ vk/kkjrky ¼uhrq vkuaVh½ ¼dhjkrh lksudj½ Hkjrhiqj ¼vkdk'k pkj½ bZu yksx eq>s ikjs'kku dkjrs gS esa Fkkuk vkserh i'ku ls vkihy dkjrk gaw dh esjs ekjus ds ckn dkjt ckys esjs eka cki dks ijs'k uk dkjs

¼vkSj esa vkius ikfjokj okys ls , ÁFkuk dkjrk gaw ekS cki dk /kku jk[kks½A^^

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. There is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner to constitute offence under section 306 of the IPC because the demand of interest on the borrowed amount does not constitute abetment to commit suicide. The ingredients of section 107 of the CrPC is completely missing. It is also contended that the money advanced towards loan was demanded and the interest of the loan demanded can never be considered or termed as “abetment to commit suicide.”

7. On behalf of the respondent-State the application is vehemently and it is contended that the deceased was running a tea stall and the accused persons were harassing him. They were taking away money everyday which he earned. Because of which the deceased left with no other option except to commit suicide.

8. The entire evidence, if taken as it is, discloses that the deceased committed suicide because of the demand of interest of the loan amount by the accused persons including the petitioner.

9. There is no averment in the statements or in the FIR that the deceased was, in any way, harassed by the accused persons. For the better understanding of the provisions, section 306 of the IPC is reproduced, which is as follows :

“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.”

10. It is also necessary to understand what actual constitute “abetment.” “Abetment” has been defined under section 107 of the IPC, which reads as follows