The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of abetment of suicide under section 306 and the definition of abetment under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision is directed by the applicants-accused under sections 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 11-10-2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T. No. 06/2011 framing charge against each of them for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 22-9-2010 on receiving the information in writing from Dr. D. K. Patidar posted at Nehru Chikitshalaya, Burhanpur regarding unnatural death of one Praveen Kunbi, son of Shri Gopal Kunbi, aged 23 years an inquest report bearing No. 29/2010 was registered at Police Station Lalbagh, Burhanpur. In the course of its enquiry after preparing the Panchanama of the dead body, the autopsy of the same was carried out. In further enquiry on interrogation of witnesses Chameli Bai Kunbi, Gopal Kunbi, Churaman Kunbi, Rupali Kunbi, Jitendra Mahajan, Dinesh Dhande; Yogesh Mahajan, Prakash Mahajan and Rahul Mahajan, it was revealed that the deceased Praveen in his lifetime was under fear and extortion of the applicants as they were demanding Rs. 6000/- from him with criminal intimidation that on non-giving such sum, they will implicate the deceased in the murder case of Shabnam d/o Ikbal Khan. Accordingly the applicants harassed and abeted Praveen Kunbi for committing the suicide. Pursuant to such extortion and instigation said Praveen by consuming poisonous substance committed suicide, on which crime No. 278/10 was registered against the applicants at the same Police Station for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and after holding investigation on establishing the case of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants, they were charge-sheeted for the same.

3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet a charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against both the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order have come to this Court with this revision.

4. Shri M. K. Tripathi, learned appearing counsel of the applicants after taking me through the copy of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and the charge framed against the applicants argued that on taking into consideration the face value of the evidence placed by the investigating agency in the charge-sheet as accepted in its entirety, the ingredients of the offence of section 306 of Indian Penal Code along with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against any of the applicants. In continuation he argued that for the sake of arguments, if it is deemed that the applicants demanded Rs. 6000/- from Praveen with criminal intimidation that on non-giving such sum to them, they will involve him in the alleged murder case of Shabnam otherwise, he may go and die even then the applicants could not be prosecuted under section 306 of Indian Penal Code treating them to be offender to instigate the deceased for committing the suicide. As such after giving the alleged extortion and intimidation by the applicants, the deceased had a remedy to approach the public authority/ Police Authority to get prosecuted the applicants for their offending act and if instead to adopt such way without approaching to the public authority, if Praveen by consuming poisonous substance has committed suicide, then the same could not be treated to be the abetement or instigation to the deceased on the part of the applicants. According to him the evidence collected by the investigating agency does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of a thing defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore the applicants could not be prosecuted for offence of section 306 of Indian Penal Code and prayed for discharging the applicants by admitting and allowing this revision.

5. Having heard the applicant's counsel at length on admission, keeping in view the arguments advanced by him, I have carefully gone thro