Gwalior, Dated:05/05/2022 Shri Ayush Saxena, Advocate for applicants.

Shri A.K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State.

Shri Rajkumar Gatwar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 17/2/2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in ST No.32/2022, by which the charge under Section 306 of IPC has been framed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision in short are that on 6/1/2022 the deceased Lokendra aged about 17 years committed suicide by hanging himself and accordingly, an information was given to the police by Purshottam. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and it was found to be suicidal. The marg statement of the witnesses were recorded and accordingly, FIR was lodged. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police filed the charge- sheet. By the impugned order, the Trial Court framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC.

3. It is submitted that the only allegation against the applicants is that on 6/1/2022 at about 7 AM, the applicants had threatened the deceased Lokendra by scolding that “in case if he is seen in the village, then he would be cut in pieces and his dead body would be thrown in the river and his parents will also be killed”. It was alleged that the deceased got frightened and accordingly, he went towards the well of Banke Gond. Beedha S/o Parmar scolded the applicants as to why they were threatening his nephew, then he too was abused and was suggested to keep his nephew properly because his nephew is behaving improperly (Aaj Kal Jyada Ud Raha Hai). Thereafter, Beedha went to answer the call of nature. When he came back, then his niece came running and informed that Lokendra has committed suicide by hanging. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is that the deceased Lokendra committed suicide because of threatening given by the applicants. It is submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicants had ever abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. No offence under Section 306 of IPC would be made out. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1141, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088, State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73, Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri.) 896

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State as well as the complainant. It is submitted that it is not only the case of threatening the deceased, but they were also seen near the place of incident.

5. However, it is fairly conceded that since no charge under Section 302 of IPC has been framed, therefore, the question of last seen together is of no importance. It is fairly conceded that the prosecution has not come up with the background for threatening the deceased.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before considering as to whether the allegations made against the applicants would amount to abetement of suicide or not, this Court would like to consider the law governing the field in question.

8. Section 306 of I.P.C. 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.''

9. “Abetment” is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. which reads as under :-

“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 thin