The prosecution must establish the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, including the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in the act.

ORDER :

Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

With the consent of parties, heard finally.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 24-4-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Jude, Ganjbasoda in ST. No. 01/09 whereby charge was framed under section 306 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, present petition has been filed.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution was that deceased Pushpabai committed suicide on 6-2-2008 due to burn injury. In prosecution it was found that upon instigation of petitioner the deceased Pushpabai committed suicide. After filing challan, charge-sheet was framed against the petitioners under section 306 Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petitioners are ladies and from the dying declaration of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was found in company of one Daulat. Thereafter, when deceased came to the house of the petitioners, then the petitioners told the deceased that she was involved with Daulat, therefore she should not come to their house. Learned counsel submits that even though the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, then too no offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code is made out. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and the charge framed against the petitioners under section 306 Indian Penal Code be quashed and the petitioners be discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in dismissing the application for releasing the seized revolver on Supurdgi. So far as framing of charge under section 306 Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Vedprakash Bhaiji vs. State of M. P., 1995 Cri.L.J. 893 wherein accused persons intimidating and goading deceased for repayment of loan and the deceased committing suicide soon thereafter, this Court held that it does not amount to abetment to commit suicide and no case under section 306, Indian Penal Code is made out. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Madiya alias Mahadev vs. State of M. P., 2006 Cri.L.J. 1963 wherein accused alleged to have tried to outrage modesty of deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by hanging with help of rope because she felt very much ashamed after two days of incident, this Court held that period of two days which elapsed between two incidents showing that act of accused did not instigate her to commit suicide. It was also held that accused cannot be held guilty of offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that the deceased Pushpabai in her dying declaration stated that the petitioners stated that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and is involved with Daulat, therefore, she should not come to their house. It is submitted that this was the main cause for the deceased to commit suicide. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in framing the charge under section 306, Indian Penal Code and it is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

5. In the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 wherein accused telling deceased 'to go and die' because of quarrel which took place between the accused and deceased, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that his itself would not constitute ingredients Hon'ble Apex Court held that this itself would not constitute ingredients of 'instigation'. It was further observed that presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of