ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order (Annexure A-1) dated 14.06.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Niwas, District Mandla in S.T. No.03/2022 by which learned trial Court has been framed charge against the applicant under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

2. As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that he had threatened deceased, namely Santosh Barman to defame his wife, as a result of which, he committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the applicant. After completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused person before the competent Court. Thereafter, charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. was framed against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order of framing charge by the trial Court against the applicant under Section 306 of I.P.C. is bad in law, illegal, incorrect and improper. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted that incident occurred on 12.11.2021 and FIR was lodged on 26.11.2021, after expiry of 14 days. It is further submitted that there is no cogent and plausible evidence to indicate that the applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no proof to indicate that prior to commission of suicide, the deceased had made any complaint or allegations against the applicant. The allegation made against the applicant is vague, general and frivolous, for framing of charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. Ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C. are missing in this case. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents available on record. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Niwas, District Mandla in S.T. No.03/2022.

4 . On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the applicant.

5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as impugned order. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to understand the provision of Section 306 of the IPC, which reads 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."

6 . It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes "œabetment" as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code as follows:

"œ107. 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

Explanation : A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

7 . In the case of K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, (2017)11 SCC 176, it has been held that mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may