ORDER
L.C. Bhadoo, J.
1. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. has been preferred by accused/applicant Ram Kalap Maurya being aggrieved by the order dated 14-10-99 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in S. T. No. 105/99 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusal of the record of the Sessions Trial No. 105/99 reached to the conclusion that prima facie based on material available on record offence under Section 306 of the I. P. C. was made out against the accused/applicant and accordingly ordered for framing the charge.
2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this criminal revision are that at the relevant time i.e. in the intervening night of 24th/25th April, 1999 the accused/applicant herein was working as superintendent of the Government Chemical Fertilizer Godown of M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., whereas, deceased K. L. Baghel was working as Godown in-charge of the said Marketing Federation at Chhutiya, District Rajnandgaon, who in the early morning of 25-4-99 committed suicide by hanging with the help of a rope in his room which was existing in the compound of the godown, leaving behind a suicidal note in the register of Govt. Chemical Fertilizer Godown to the effect that 'he has not committed any dishonesty in his life nor he will do it. You may be protected by law, I will not leave you Maurya. You are doing a lot of smuggling. Rs. 3,000/- is meaningless. You are telling me the law, you may charge and send me jail. I do not want to live any more. You have developed animosity against me. You are an officer and I am an employee. Till today I have not embezzled even a single penny. On account of my pick-pocketing, this situation has emerged. I persuaded you. If you are demanding money, from where should I give? Had I indulged in misdeeds. I could have meted out. On account of this Superintendent Maurya, department has suffered a loss. At page 23 he has written that you have demanded Rs. 5,000/- from me which I cannot pay. You are a greedy person. I will become Satan and kill you. Thereafter, my objective will be achieved.'
3. The police registered case against the accused/applicant. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, important among them was Beni Ram Yadav who was working as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the Rice Mill, Chhuriya as also evidence of Chatur Ram, who was working as Chowkidar in the godown where K. L. Baghel was working as godown keeper, recorded the statements of other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that after taking into consideration whole prosecution evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prima facie make out offence against the accused, because the material collected by the prosecution does not satisfy ingredients and requirements of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the I. P. C, in order to constitute offence against the accused/applicant. He further submitted that therefore the impugned order framing charge against the accused/applicant is liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, Shri U. N. S. Deo submitted that in order to frame charge as per the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr. P. C. the Courts duty is to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If upon consideration, the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. He submitted that statements of Beni Ram and Chatur Ram as also suicidal note left by the deceased are sufficient in order to frame charge in terms of the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr. P. C.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused the record. The law is well settled regarding framing of charge as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M. P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) JLJ 142 : 2000 Cri LJ 944 held that:
At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
8. In the matter of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjab etc. v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya and Ors. etc. reported in : 1990CriLJ1869 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
At the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court may peruse the records for the limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof.
9. In the matters of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh reported in : 1977CriLJ1606 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal reported in : 1979CriLJ154 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
It seems well settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose shift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common, sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
10. Present is a case in which charge sheet has been filed against the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 of the I. P. C. for causing abetment to K. L. Baghel to commit suicide who was subordinate and working as godown in-charge. In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the I. P. C. it is necessary that there must be some material on record that the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide in terms of the provisions of Section 306 of the I. P. C. Section 306 of the I. P. C. envisages that:
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
11. Section 107 of the I. P. C. defines the abetment, which lays down that:
a person abets the doing of a thing who - firstly 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, is said to have been committed the abetment.
12. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of C.G. reported in : 2001CriLJ4724 the Apex Court held that;
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
13. Therefore, in view of the above, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court is required to evaluate the material on record and to find out as to whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the I. P. C. it is necessary that the prosecution must prima facie establish with material that the accused/ applicant had instigated the deceased by his acts or illegal omission or with continued course of conduct which compelled the deceased to commit suicide and the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. The act or instigation of the accused and committing of the suicide by the deceased must be so direct, correlated, immediate and proximate with each other that on the facts it can safely be inferred that the deceased has committed suicide only on account of instigation, inducement, abetment and provocation given by the accused and the act and instigation caused by the accused were so imminent that the deceased was not left with any other alternative but to commit suicide and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a man of ordinary prudence in the ordinary course of nature is not left with any other alternative but to commit suicide. Intention or knowledge, mens rea of the accused that by his act and instigation the deceased had committed suicide is also necessary.
14. Applying the above principle, if we look into the material available in the present case, perusal of the statement of Chatur Ram, who was working as Chowkidar, In the said godown, reveals that the accused/applicant herein being a superintendent went to Chhuriya on 21-4-99 for inspection, in his presence and in the presence of Beghel (since deceased), Maurya inspected godown, office and record. In the night, he saw that the deceased was in his room in a drunken condition. He was saying that Maurya is a corrupt fellow. He is demanding Rs. 5,000/-saying that you are earning on account of extra income by illegal activities. From where I should give money, better to die. He was talking irrelevant. The inspection report was prepared by Maurya. Baghel said that at about 3-4 p.m. Maurya returned from Dongergarh and asked Baghel that there is shortage of Rs. 3,000/- in the cash box, he should deposit that money, on which Baghel replied that on account of necessity he has spent money and he will deposit at the end of the month. It further shows that thereafter till Baghel committed suicide he was regularly in a drunken condition and consuming liquor since 21-4-99. Baghel also disclosed that on 22-4-99 Maurya returned only to demand Rs. 5,000/- from him, from where he should pay the money when he has not committed any illegality. 'I will commit suicide and ensure that Maurya is sent to jail'. He will not leave other persons also. 'I will spoil everyone'. He persuaded him but he did not agree. He said that 'look Chatur for three times I had attempted to commit suicide by hanging but even then I could not die. Even injury of abrasion was not caused to him. Even then he will show by committing suicide.
15. Perusal of statement of Beni Ram Yadav, who was working as daily wage chowkidar at the Kisan Rice Mill, which was adjacent to the godown of the deceased, also shows that the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor. On 21-4-99, Maurya came for inspection, at that time, Baghel and Chatur were present. He has stated that he does not know about the dispute among Maurya and Baghel. On 22-4-99, Maurya left for Dongergarh and he returned at about 3 p.m. He came to the godown and remained there. At that time, Accountant Agase and Baghel were also present and there was some dispute between Maurya and Baghel. The statement further shows that he was regularly consuming liquor since 21-4-99. Ultimately, in the morning of 25-4-99 at about 5 a.m. Baghel went to attend call of nature, thereafter he returned. At about 6.30 a.m. when Beni Ram went to the room of Baghel he saw that the room of the door of Baghel was open, he was hanging with the help of rope and he was dead. Even the statement of Accountant Agase shows that in the presence of Chatur, Baghel and him, Maurya opened the cash box and said that there is shortage of Rs. 3,000/-. He took register and cash book, then Baghel demanded receipt, on which Maurya returned the register and cash book.
16. If the above material is taken at the face value, Maurya went for inspection of the godown, at the time of inspection shortage of Rs. 3,000/- was found in the cash box, which was admitted by Baghel, he promised that he will recoup the amount which was found short, thereafter he was continuously consuming liquor and even as per the statement of Chatur, who was working as chowkidar under Baghel, Baghel informed that he had already attempted to commit suicide for 3 times. But this time he will definitely commit suicide. He will not leave anyone. This conduct of Baghel shows that he was a man of hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord or differences that is why on the earlier 3 occasions he attempted to commit suicide. All these acts are suggestive of the fact that Maurya was discharging his duties. He conducted inspection. There is nothing on record that Maurya in any manner abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide by his acts or omission or he created any situation whereby the deceased was not left with any other alternative but to commit suicide. In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the I. P. C. for any act or omission, there must be an intention or knowledge or mens rea of the accused that by his act the deceased had committed suicide. Maurya inspected the godown and the record in the presence of Chatur, Beni Ram, Agase and other persons but none of those witnesses have stated in their statements that Maurya in any manner demanded money from the deceased or threatened him in any manner.
17. Therefore, looking to the above facts. I am of the considered opinion that based on the material available on record no prima facie case was made out against the accused to constitute offence under Section 306 of the I. P. C, as there was no sufficient material on record to frame charge for commission of offence under Section 306 of the I. P. C.
18. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.