1. The petitioners herein/accused have filed this petition under section 397 of CrPC challenging the order dated 1.3.2013 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.126/13, whereby charge under section 306 of IPC has been framed against them.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the matter are that on receiving an information to the effect that one dead body was lying on railway track, a merg at Crime No.40/2012 under section 174 of CrPC was registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior. The merg was inquired into and after preliminary inquiry, an offence under section 306 of IPC vide Crime No.343/12 was registered at Police Station Maharajpura, Gwalior against five accused persons. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners as well as one Jaisingh Jatav before the Committal Court, which on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the trial Court for the trial.

3. Learned trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under section 306 of IPC against the present petitioners as well as co-accused, Jaisingh Jatav. The petitioners denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Jitendra Singh (the deceased) committed suicide and left one suicide note in which he stated that his wife, Rajni Chourasiya had illicit relationship with one Jaisingh Julaniya and he saw them in compromise position. Thereafter, his wife and family members of his wife threatened to kill him and his family members and also demanded money, therefore, he has committed suicide. If the entire suicide note and other evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation is accepted in toto, no case is made out against the petitioners for framing charge under section 306 of IPC. On these grounds, learned senior counsel prays that the petitioners may be discharged from the aforesaid charge. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 SCC (Cri.) 1157;

(ii) Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana [2008(1) CAR 492]; and

(iii) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh [2001(2) BLJ 113=2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088].

5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that there is prima facie case made out for proceeding against the petitioners under section 306 of IPC.

6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under :

“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.”

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish : (i) that, a person committed suicide, and (ii) such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under section 306 would stand only if there is an “abetment”; for the commission of the crime.

8. The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows :

“107. Abetment of a thing. -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -- First -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly -- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 : A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or