Abetment of suicide requires clear intention and instigation, not merely demanding repayment of loans.

1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner Shiv Narayan @ Pappu is directed against order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.1900408/2016, whereby a charge for the offence punishable under S.306 read with S.34 of the IPC was framed against petitioner Shiv Narayan and co - accused Anoop Dubey.

2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may briefly be stated thus: The deceased Harish Chouhan had borrowed some amount from petitioner / accused Shiv Narayan @ Pappu Malviya. He had returned sufficient amount, yet the petitioner Shiv Narayan and co - accused added usurious rates of interest to the principal amount and used to threaten him for returning the same. At about 8:00 p.m. on 01.04.2016, petitioner Shiv Narayan visited the residence of the deceased and threatened that he would anyhow recover his money. If the deceased did not return it, he will see him. On 02.04.2016 at about 8:30 p.m., petitioner Shiv Narayan again visited the residence of the deceased and threatened him for money. After sometime, the deceased consumed a sulfas tablet. His wife Lalita Chouhan asked as to what had happened; whereon, he told her that accused persons Shiv Narayan and Anoop Dubey were relentlessly harassing him for money; therefore, he had consumed a sulfas tablet. Deceased was taken to hospital, where he expired during treatment. Lalita Chouhan has also stated under S.161 that petitioner Shiv Narayan used to tell her husband that if he was unable to return the petitioner's money, he should consume sulfas tablet and die.

3. Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if all allegations made against him are taken at their face value, his act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.

4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent / State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioner was pressurizing the deceased to return his money after imposing usurious rates of interest; therefore, the deceased was under severe mental stress.

5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the conduct as brought - forth in the statements of witnesses, constitute abetment of suicide.

6. S.306 of the Indian Penal Code 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7. Term abetment has been defined under S.107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:
"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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

8. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 that:
"To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option e