IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6149 of 2024 DINESH KUMAR GAUTAM AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER The petitioners have preferred the present criminal revision under Section 438 of BNSS challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by XIX Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2024; whereby, the charges under Sections 306, 34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant revision petition are that on 16.11.2021 at 1.00 PM, deceased Vinod Bihari Gupta, maternal uncle of the complainant, had committed suicide in hotel Chandralok by consuming poisonous substance on account of alleged instigation made by the petitioners with regard to transaction of money towards sale of seeds and pesticides. On such allegation, Merg No.44 of 2021 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior and during merg inquiry, statements of Ram Kumar, Atul Gupta, Sudeep Tiwari, Ankit Signature Not Verified Gupta, Abhishek Gupta and Shashi Gupta were recorded and one suicide note also collected. After completion of enquiry, an F.I.R. vide Crime No.501 of 2022 was lodged. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners before the concerned Court. The trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 306, 34 of I.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2024. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that impugned order passed by the Court below is unjust, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law, as it had not taken into consideration the ocular as well as documentary evidence available on record while passing the order impugned.

4. It was further argued that since the very provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC which relates to abetment of a thing and abetment of suicide are not attracted, the registration of crime and framing of charges under aforesaid sections is per se illegal, as for abetment of a thing, there should be some instigation to any person to do that thing or there should be engagement of 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 doing of that thing or the said person intentionally aided, by any of his act or illegal omission, doing of that thing, then only it can be said that the person has abetted a thing and if the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not fulfilled, then the provisions of Section 306 of IPC which speaks of abetment of commission of such suicide, cannot be said to be attracted.

Signature Not Verified

5. It was further submitted that as there is no instigation on the part of the present petitioners, therefore, no case is made out under Section 306 of IPC. Neither there is any iota of evidence about instigation against them nor there is any ingredient of Section 107 of IPC. Dying declaration is also not implicative to the petitioner.

6. While placing reliance in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, it was argued that the liability of an accused facing investigation and prosecution under Section 306 of IPC in the context of Section 107 thereof was considered and it was held that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite, further holding that presence of mens rea, therefore, was a necessary concomitant of instigation. To bolster his submission, further reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jayedeepsingh Pravinsinh Chavda & Others