1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Lal Chand & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1385/2009) Date of Order :- 09th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.K.C. Sharma, for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners. According to Mr. K.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, a bare perusal of the suicide note, written by the deceased, Girdhari Sharma, does not reveal the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in framing charge against the petitioners. Secondly, merely because the petitioners have failed to discharge their debt towards the deceased, they cannot be said to have abetted his suicide. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the cases of Navratan Mal @ Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) R.C.C. 962], Gautam Raj Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan [1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 646] & on the case of Hazarilal Vs. The State of Rajasthan [1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 2 Section 107 of IPC defences the mean to abet a thing as under : 107. Abetement 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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Section 108 IPC defends the word abettor as under :- 108. Abettor.- A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable of law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Suicide note written by Girdhari Sharma is as under :- "मɇ िगरधारȣ शमा[ िनवासी िसÚदाथ[ नगर जयपुर पÜपू बोहरा (शंकर) और लालचÛद (लादेन) इन दोनɉ से परेशान होकर अपनी जान दे रहा हँू । मेरȣ मौत के िलए ये दोनɉ ǔजàमेदार है । इÛहोने दो वष[ पूव[ मुझसे 6 लाख ǽपये उधार िलये थे ये पैसे मैने माकȶ ट से उठाकर Ǒदये थे । उनमे से 3.50 लाख ǽपये तो इÛहोने दे Ǒदये उसके बाद बाकȧ रकम के िलए दो साल से टालमटोल कर रहे है और तरह-तरह से धमǑकयां दे रहे है इनके ऐसा करने से मुझ पर माकȶ ट का Þयाज सǑहत काफȧ पैसा कजȶ के ǽप मɅ चढ गया है । अब मौत के िसवाए मेरे पास दसरा कोई ु राःता नहȣं है । A bare perusal of Section 107 IPC clearly shows that instigation need not be through a tangible means. But a person can instigate another by creating certain circumstances which would compel the other person and would drive the other person to commit suicide. A bare perusal of the suicide note clearly reveals that because the petitioners kept on delaying the repayment of loan 3 amount, the deceased had no other option, but to borrow money from the market on a higher interest rate. Faced with a financial crises, unable to pay his own debt - both the situations which were created specifically by the petitioners - the deceased felt that he had no other option but to choose death. Thus, the petitioners have created sufficient circumstances to compel the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, they have instigated the commission of the said Act. In other words, prima facie they have abetted the deceased in committing suicide. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the time of framing charge, the court is concerned only with the existence of a 'strong' prima facie case. The existence of the suicide note is sufficient to create a strong prima facie case for the court to frame the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC. It is a matter of trial, it is a matter of defence to plead its case and it is a matter for prosecution to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. However, a trial cannot be, and should not be, throttled at the very initial stage. Although the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Navratan Mal @ Shankar Lal (supra), Gautam Raj Mehta (supra) & Hazarilal (supra), but the facts of those cases are not similar to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio laid down in those cases are inapplicable to the present case. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-