HI©WCOURT OF CHMATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR Critninal Revision N®.107^006 Rikhee Ram Mahilang^ and wiother. Versus State ofCI-ihdttisggrh ^ostfor Judament: 17:02.20061 Sdf- DilipRaosahebDeshmukh judge HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Revision No. 107/2006 Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri &i!ip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Rikhee Ram Mahilang and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Shr-i Snivendu Pondya, leamed counsel for tlrie opplicant. Shri Ashish Shukla, learned S.A./Addl. Pubtic Prosecutor for State. ORbER (belivered on f7'K February, 2006) S. ThisCriminalRevisionjsdirectedagainsttheorderdated 8.2.2006 passed by 3nri 11th Addl. Sessions Sudy. (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Sessions Cass. No. 69/2006 whereby a charge under Section 306 re.ad with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against the applicants. 2. Brief facts are that on 19.7.2004, Bhushanlal Verma committed suicide by hanging himself inside his house at about 4.30 p.m. Merg intimation (No. 78/2004) was lodged by Bhushanlal Verma, brother of the deceased on 19.7.2004 at 7.00 p.m. at P.5. Dharsiva wherein no cause for the suicide committed by Bhushanlal Verma was stated. During investigation, the Prosecution Qfficer in reply to a letter of the City Superintendent of Police, Disn. Korba, regarding merg No. 78/2004 opined on 14.9.2005 that on 16.7.2004, NikRiram ond otiiers had levelted on allegatioh ^ against Bhushanlal Verma that he was responsible for damaging the tractor of Sunder Singh and therefore a prima-facie offence. of abetment of suicide exists. Consequently, Crime No. 322/2005 was registered on 18.9.2005 at P.5. Dharsiva i.e. more than a year and two months after the suicide coraroitted by Bhushanlal Verma. A challan under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the appliconts and one co-accused Komleshdas Vaishnav. 3. 5hri Shivendu Pandya, learned counse! for the applicant has argued that even if the entire prosecution story is believed to be correct, no prima-fade case undeH 5ection 306 of I.P.C. exists against the applicants since there was not even an iota of material on record to show that the appliconts had instigated the abetment of suicide by Bhushanlal Verma. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that impugned order was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Sovt. Advocate has opposed the {srayer, •though formally. 4. It is settled law that for purposes of framing of charge against the accused persons, a prima-facie case must exist. The test of finding out a prima-facie case against the accused is thet if the entire material produced before the Court by the prosecution is taken at its face '/alue, it would prima-facie substantiate the guift of the accused 'persons for the offence alleged. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, it is found that on 19.7.2004, Bhushanlal Verma quietiy committed suicide gt 4.30 p.m. insi'de his house by hanging himsetf. The merg-intimation -•a ^!odged by his brother did not revea! any cause for the suicide. The statement of Saraswati Bai recorded on 21.9.2005 under Section 161 Cr.P.C only shows that the applicants ond one Kamleshdas Vaishnav were searching for her husband and had taken her husboind with them. Late at night, when her husband retumed, he told her -Hiat an allegation was levelled against him that^he had damaged the tractor of one person of Kumhari. The statement of Behraram dated 21.9.2005 also shows that the appticants we.re searching for Bhushanlal Verma for making good the loss occasioned to the tractor. Shri Ashfsh Shukla, leamed 6ovt. Advocate has also not been able to point out any material on record which would iead to the inference that the applicants had instigated tiie abetment of suicide by ~ Bhushanlal Verma. 5. Abetment has been defined in Section 107, IPC, which reads as under;- "a person abets the doing of a thing, wiho-F/r'st, Instigates any person to do ttiat thing; or Secondly, Engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, an.d in order to the doing of that thing; or T^/rf^/, Intentionally aids, by cny act or illegar-omission, the doing of that thing." Under Section 109, IPC, punishment of abetment has been provided, which reads as under:- 4 Y "Whoever abets any offence sha!l, if the act abetted is commiti-ed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for punishment of such abetment, bs punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation:- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment when it' is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment." Making a person !iab!e for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penat Code, -rtie prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide. Untess the alleged act of an accused falls under any of the •rtiree categories of acts, enumerated in Section 107, Penal Code, the same would not amount to abetment. It is settted law that in order to establish an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. a^ainst the accused persons^ the prosecution has to show thct the suicide was so direct, co-related, immediate and proximate cause of the instigation offered by the accused persons. In this case, there is not even an iota of material to show that the applicants in any manner instigated the commfesion of suicide by Bhushanla! Verma. Thus, the order dated 8.2.2006 framing charge against the appficants under Section 306 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. )^ 'r'ivc; 6. Thjs revision has been preferred by the appellants/accused persons Nikhiram ond Balraj Singh ond not by tha 3 accused Kamleshdas Vaishnav. In &rucharan Kumar And Another Vs. State of Ra^asthan reported in 2003 Vol.2 698, it was held that in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an oppeal, but his case stands on the same footing as that of the other accused who have preferred the appeal, such person should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. In Va.lraoy Sambayya Najdu Vs. Stats of ^rodesh_reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. 4433 Suweme Court. it was held that since the appellants were acquitted of all charges, other accused persons who had not preferred the appeal, would a!so be in the interest of justice enti+led to the benefit of the decision. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it appears just that the chorge under Section 306 of l.P.C. framed against Kamleshctas Vaishanav is dlsoset aside whiie allowing his "evision. In the result, this revisjon is allowed. Order dated S.2.2006 framing charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the applicants Nikhiram, Balraj Singh snd also against the co-accused Kcmleshdas Vaishciav is set aside. Since there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused/applicants namely Nikhiram, and Balraj Singh ond the co-accused Kamleshdas Vaishnav, thsy are dischcirged underSection 227 of Cr.P.C. Sd'- ^osVM" .os»s^°oes' u^ yw^^-s^^