GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the impugned order dated 10. 5. 2002, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, ordered to frame charge under Section 306 IPC against both the accused petitioners in Sessions Case No. 147/2001.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Prakash Chand Jain (father of deceased Jitendra Jain), submitted a written ruport at Police Station, Rampura, Kota on 21. 4. 2001, with the averments that Jitendra Kumar Jain was appointed as Medical Representative in September 1999, in Menarini Ranaq Pharma Ltd. a registered company. Jitendra Kumar Jain attended a meeting at Jaipur on 15. 3. 2001, which was also attended by accused petitioners as representative of the company. Both the accused petitioners misbehaved with his son and told Rqe bl deiuh esa uksdjh djus ds ;ksx; ugha gks] Rqe fudees gks] pqyyq Hkj ikuh esa Rqegsa Mwc ejuk pkfg,** The accused petitioners further asked his son to resign, otherwise he would be removed from 31st March 2001. When his son returned home, he found him under tension. Thereafter accused petitioner Satveer Singh had a telephonic talk with the informant and his son Jitendra Jain on 16. 4. 2001 either to increase sale or to resign. His son was asked to attend another meeting at Delhi on 20. 4. 2001. On the next day i. e. 17. 4. 2001, Jitendara Jain had gone to Kaithoon for company business and came back at 2 p. m. In the evening at about 6 p. m. a letter from the Company was received by his son and he left the house saying that he is going to take sale-statement in another house. At about 9 p. m. he went in search of his son and found him hanging. He was taken to hospital but was declared dead. A suicide note alongwith a copy of the letter dated 8. 2. 2001 was found in his pocket. A case under section 306 IPC was registered and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, who after hearing learned counsel for the parties ordered to frame charge as stated here-in-above. I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners contended that the prosecution case if taken as it is, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as there is absolutely no evidence of any abetment. While referring the evidence, it was contended that the meeting between the accused petitioners who were higher official in the company and the deceased took place on 15. 3. 2001 while Jitendra Jain committed suicide on 17. 4. 2001, just 32 days thereafter and thus the suicide was not the direct result of the words uttered by the accused petitioners in the meeting on 15. 3. 2001 and there was no mensrea on the part of the accused petitioners. Reliance is placed upon following judgments:- Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M. P. & Anr. (1 ). According to this judgment, there were two paramours having sexual jealous. During quarrel appellant remarked the deceased `to go & die'. The deceased committed suicide at his home. It was held that these words were casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment and suicide was not a direct result of the words and there was no mens rea. Hence the charge under section 306 IPC was quashed. Similar view was taken by this court in Hari Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) In Sanji Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (3), the facts were that there was a quarrel between the accused appellant and his brother-in-law (sister's husband) on 25. 7. 88 and the appellant said him `to of and die' and thereafter the deceased committed suicide on 27. 7. 1988. It was held that assuming these words were uttered by the accused, it did not amount to mens rea ``instigation'' to commit suicide. It was further held that the words ` to go and die' itself do not constitute the ingredient of instigation. Secondly the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to deceased were on 25. 07. 1998 ensued by a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on 27. 07. 1998 i. e. after two days, the deceased had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, derived the deceased to commit suicide and thus suicide by handing after two days leaving a suicide note, which was not a handy work of a sound mind and sense stating and thus the charge under Section 306 IPC, was quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order. While referring oral as well as some documents, it was contended that the deceases was under continuous tension on account of abusive language and objectionable behaviour of the accused petitioners including the telephonic talk one day prior to this occurrence and a letter which was received at about 6 p. m. on the same day derived the deceased to commit suicide and thus the charge has been rightly framed and the High Court in revision should not interfere when the trial court has held that prima facie case is made out. Reliance is placed upon Suresh alias Pappu Bhudarmal Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra (4), and Om Wati (smt.) and Another vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others The Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the judgments held that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction and the Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the judgments cited by both the sides. It is not in dispute that deceased Jitendra Jain was appointed as Sales Executive in September 1999 and both the accused petitioners were senior officials of the company. The first letter addressed to Jitendra Jain by accused petitioner Satveer Singh is dated 8. 3. 2001, wherein Mr. Jitendra Jain was informed that he had not achieved the target and he was advised to improve his performance and was further suggested to meet the accused petitioner Ashok Rajdan on 15th March 2001 at Jaipur. On perusal of this letter dated 8. 3. 2001, it is evident that no threat was given to the deceased and even no abusive or harsh language was used and it seems to be a routine letter in connection with affairs of the company. Therefore, a meeting was held at Jaipur on 15. 32001. Both the accused petitioners and the deceased Jitendra Jain attended this meeting. Thereafter Mr. Jain committed suicide in the night of 17. 4. 2001 leaving a suicidal note. According to this note, both accused petitioners abused him and uttered the words as stated here-in-above. The deceased Jain came in tension on account of this meeting and he committed suicide according to his suicidal note. Another letter, after the meeting dated 15. 3. 2001 is dated 9. 4. 2001, which was addressed to deceased Jitendra Jain by accused petitioner Ashok Kumar Rajdan, According to which Shri Jain was informed to attend the meeting on 20. 4. 2001 and he was further advised to come fully prepared to take active part in the deliberations with regard to his achievements during the first quarter of the year. The letter also does not contain any threat or abusive language and this is the letter, which is said to be received at 6 p. m. on 17. 4. 2001 by the deceased.
(3.) SECTION 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment as provided in this SECTION. SECTION 107 IPC defines the term `abetment'. A person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. When considered the entire evidence in the light of the definition of the `abetment', no offence under SECTION 306 IPC is prima facie made out in view of the judgments reported in case of Swamy Prahaladdas and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh (both supra ). There was no means rea at all on the part of both the accused petitioners. As stated here-in-above, both the letters dated 8. 3. 2001 and 9. 4. 2001, neither contain any threat or abusive language so as to create any such tension with drived the deceased to commit suicide. Assuming that both the accused petitioners uttered such words as mentioned in the suicidal note in the meeting which was held on 15. 3. 2001, these words do not amount to instigation as defined under SECTION 107 IPC and there is absolute lacking of mens rea for compelling the deceased to commit suicide. According to the prosecution case the deceased committed suicide after 32 days of the meeting and it can not be said that the suicide was the direct result of the words uttered in the meeting on 15. 3. 2001. Therefore, charge under SECTION 306 IPC is not even prima facie made out. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10. 5. 2002 is set - aside and the accused petitioners are discharged from the offence under Section 306 IPC. .;