SUSHANT BASAK vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Since the issue involved in both the revisions is common, they are disposed of by this common order.

Both the revisions have been filed challenging the order dated 27.1.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Durg in Case No.44 of 2016. Vide the

impugned order, the Special Judge, Durg has framed charges against both the Applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34, 420/34,

467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Applicants submit that so far as the constitution of an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, the necessary ingredient, i.e., abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is missing from the documents

enclosed along with the case diary. They further submit that the documents which have been filed along with the charge-sheet without adding and

subtracting anything to the said documents themselves would indicate that there was never an occasion on the part of the Applicants for abetting,

instigating or enticing the deceased persons for committing suicide. They submit that the Applicants happen to be employees of the main accused

Ashok Kumar who was running a fake company as the Citizen Finance Company in Delhi and the Applicants were working with him at Delhi. There

is no allegation or overt act committed by the Applicants which compelled the deceased persons to commit suicide. None of the circumstances were

fully established against the Applicants. The evidence led by the prosecution is extremely insufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code as the ingredients of the abetment contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to commit suicide are not visible. It

is further submitted that coaccused Niteen Saurya alias Raj filed a revision, being Criminal Revision No.613 of 2016 against framing of charge which

has been allowed by this Court on 1.8.2016. The case of the Applicants is quite identical to the discharged co-accused Niteen Saurya alias Raj.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants. He submits that the

Applicants were fully aware of the fact that they were working for a fake company. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section

306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the Applicants. Hence, he claimed for dismissal of the present revisions.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

In (2002) 5 SCC 371 (Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.), it has been observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 that the word

“instigate†denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the

necessary concomitant of instigation.

Similarly, this Court, while deciding Criminal Revision No.511 of 2004 (Nihalluddin v. State of Chhattisgarh) on 3.11.2010, has also relied upon the

above referred to judgment of the Supreme Court and observed that there should be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and there should be a

direct or active act by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. It was further observed that there must be some evidence of instigation

or cooperation or initial assistance by the accused forcing the victim/deceased to commit suicide to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code.

In the instant case, a bare perusal of the documents filed along with the case diary does not reflect any ingredient to frame a charge against the

Applicants for abetment to commit suicide by the deceased persons. Such offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Apart

from this, it is also clear that on same set of documents, while deciding Criminal Revision No.613 of 2016, this Court has already discharged co-

accused Niteen Saurya alias Raj from the charge framed under Section 306/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State admitted the fact that no extra piece of evidence is available against the present Applicants.

From the above discussion, I find that the offence alleged against the present Applicants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not

made out.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal revisions are allowed in part. The impugned order dated 27.1.2017, so far as it relates to framing of

charge against the Applicants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The Trial Court shall now proceed against the Applicants

for the remaining charges only.