Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision filed by three applicants (Rupesh Suresh Jain, Lokesh Santosh Jain, and Vivek Govind Purohit) challenging an order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.144/2014, whereby the trial court recorded a finding that there was sufficient evidence against the applicants for framing of charge under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide of one Gajanan Jadhav. The deceased, Gajanan Jadhav, was a labour contractor who left his house on 22.05.2013 and was later found dead. A suicide note was recovered which allegedly named the applicants as responsible for his suicide. The applicants contended that there was no evidence of any willful act or omission or intentional aid or instigation on their part, and therefore they ought to have been discharged. The State opposed the revision, arguing that the suicide note clearly indicated the applicants' responsibility. The High Court examined the suicide note and found that it merely expressed anger and frustration against the applicants for not paying money or for other grievances, but did not contain any direct instigation or abetment to commit suicide. The court held that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be some direct or indirect act of instigation, willful conduct, or intentional aid. Since the suicide note did not show any such act, the trial court's order was perverse and based on no evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicants from the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Framing of Charge - The court examined whether a suicide note expressing anger and frustration against the applicants, without any direct instigation or willful act, is sufficient to frame charge for abetment of suicide. Held that mere expression of anger or frustration in a suicide note, without any act of instigation or intentional aid, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC. The trial court's order framing charge was set aside and applicants were discharged. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Section 227 CrPC - Discharge - The court considered the scope of Section 227 CrPC and held that if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the accused must be discharged. The revisional court can interfere if the trial court's order is based on no evidence or is perverse. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suicide note and other material on record constitute sufficient grounds to frame charge under Section 306 IPC against the applicants for abetment of suicide of the deceased.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2015, and discharged the applicants from the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires direct or indirect acts of instigation
- willful conduct
- or intentional aid
- mere expression of anger or frustration in suicide note without instigation is insufficient for framing charge under Section 306 IPC
- at stage of framing charge
- court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
- revisional court can interfere if trial court's order is perverse or based on no evidence.
