IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO ON THE 4^th OF JULY, 2022 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2354 of 2021 Between:-

1. CHANDAR SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

2. NARAYAN SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST SURENDRA SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH, 3.

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VIJENDRA SINGH S/O CHANDAR SINGH, 4.

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE MITHUPURA P.S SIDDIKGANJ TEH. ASHTA, DISTRICT- SEHORE, MADHYA PRADESH ....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION SIDDIKGANJ, DISTT. SEHORE, MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI PANKAJ RAJ, PANEL LAWYER)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

In this revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore whereby charges for offences punishable under Sections 306, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the applicants.

2. As per the prosecution case, allegation against the applicants is that being aggrieved with the harassment caused by them, Babulal Sendhav (since deceased) committed suicide on 16^th December, 2020 by hanging himself on a tree in his own agricultural field. The wife and children of the deceased in their statements alleged that the present applicants are relatives of the deceased and their field is adjacent to the field of the deceased. The applicants had not permitted the deceased to enter into his own field through the boundaries of their field hence, he had gone under depression and finally Babulal committed suicide. A civil litigation is also pending between the parties and Revenue Officer vide order dated 9.10.2020 had ordered the applicants to give way to Babulal but the present applicant did not allow him to enter into his own agricultural field.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants have assailed the order framing charges against the applicants by contending that the applicants 1 to 3 are brothers of the deceased whereas the applicant No.4 is nephew of the deceased. Though there was dispute between the parties regarding boundaries of the field but the applicants have never harassed the deceased and the applicants never abetted him to commit suicide. The FIR is lodged by the family of the deceased after twenty five days with a purpose only to harass the applicants. The act of the applicant does not come under the purview of Section 107 of the IPC. If the entire prosecution story is accepted as true, the same does not, in any way, implicate the applicants for offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 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.”

5. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes “abetment” as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 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 Explanation 1 : 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 t