ORDER
A.K. Srivastava, J.
1. Applicant Dr. Mangleshwar Singh is aggrieved by the order dated 3-10-96 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in S.T. No. 79/95, whereby he has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC.
2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of.the prosecution is that on 26-2-95 at the house of Raghunath Singh arrangement of marriage of his son was going on, Raghunath Singh found that the currency notes of Rs. 800/- were missing from the pocket of his coat, he inquired from his brother applicant-Dr. Mangleshwar Singh who raised suspicion upon deceased Hiralal, who pleaded ignorance. Deceased Hiralal was serving in the house of Raghunath. Further the case of prosecution is that applicant admonished Hiralal and threatened him by saying that a report shall be lodged in police regarding theft committed by him, thereafter Hiralal went to the house of his sister Kalui and uncle Ram Ganesh and brought them to the house of Raghunath and in presence of these persons returned Rs. 800/-to Raghunath. In the meantime a dehati nalishi under Section 380 was lodged by Raghunath. It is also stated that the applicant caused Marpeet and also gave threat, Hiralal felt deeply depressed as he was caught committing theft of Rs. 800/- as a result of which he went towards Belauhi water-fall and committed suicide. His dead-body was recovered on 12-3-95. Earlier on 27-2-95, when Hiralal was not found by his family members the matter was reported to police and the report was registered as missing person 4/95.
3. Police recorded statements of Shyamkali, Mahesh Yadav, Smt. Sukhrajua, Radhikabai, Kalui Ram Ganesh and Sahdev under Section 161, Cr.PC. All these witnesses are related to deceased Hiralal, from the statements of these witnesses it is gathered that as applicant caused Marpeet, Hiralal felt deeply depressed and committed suicide.
4. Prosecution filed challan purporting to be under Section 306, IPC against applicant. The learned Trial Judge framed charge punishable under Section 306, IPC against the applicant which he denied. The petitioner has assailed the said order by filing present revision petition.
5. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if the entire case of prosecution is taken into consideration, no case is made out for framing charge under Section 306, IPC. He has placed reliance upon a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Sanju v. State of MP., he has also placed reliance upon Swamy Prahalad-das v. State ofM.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, Ramnaresh v. State of M.P., 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 183 = 2002(2) MPLJ 360, Vedprakash v. State of M.P., 1995 MPLJ 458, Utkal v. State of M.P., 1997(2) MPU Note 32, Rajalal @ Kamlesh v. State of M.P., 1999(1) MPLJ Note 43. On the basis of these authorities he contended that ingredient of Section 107, IPC is not made out in the charge-sheet and therefore, no charge under Section 306, IPC can be framed against him. Shri Wakil Khan, learned Panel Lawyer has contended that the learned Trial Court had not committed any mistake in framing the charge and revision deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in Dhularam v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.LJ 4057, he has also placed reliance on State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari, 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 164 = AIR 2000 SC 665, Omwati v. State, through Delhi Admn. and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 333.
6. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Prosecution has filed challan against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, which reads as under :--
'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.'
8. Abetment has been defined in Section 107, IPC, which reads as under:--
'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 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.'
Under Section 109, IPC, punishment of abetment has been provided, which reads as under :--
'Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation :-- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.'
9. Making a person liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide. Unless the alleged act of an accused falls under any of the three categories of acts, enumerated in Section 107, Penal Code, the same would not amount to abetment. Whatever has been stated by the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.PC do not bring the applicant under the ambit of Section 107. IPC. The petitioner's act subjecting the deceased to assault and threat did not fall under any of the three categories of Section 107 of the Pena! Code. The petitioner's said act could be the cause for him to commit suicide, but thru certainly would not amount to 'abetment' to commit the same as defined under Section 107 of the Penal Code.
10. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra) the accused allegedly remarking to the deceased go and die, thereafter deceased went home and committed suicide. It was held suicide, was in direct result of the words uttered by the appellant and Sessions Court erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the accused. This judgment has been relied upon by the Apex Court in a later pronouncement in the case of Sanju (supra). In para 14 the Supreme Court has held as under:--
'A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. On plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handi-work of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section. 161, Cr.PC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26-7-98 her husband came to them in a inebriated condition and was abusing her and to her members of the family. The prosecution .story, if believed shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25-7-98 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26-7-98, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-98. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306, IPC. It is the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensured on 25-7-98 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.'
The Supreme Court by allowing the appeal of the accused quashed the charge framed by Additional Sessions Judge for offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. The similar view has been taken by this Court in several judgments which are referred hcreinabove.
11. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 SC 366, the Apex Court while discussing the scope of Section 227, Cr.PC has held as under :--
'That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.'
Thus, under revisional jurisdiction this Court can scan the validity of the order of Trial Court framing charge under Section 306, IPC specially when there is no material to frame charge under that section.
12. Shri Wakil Khan, learned Panel Lawyer, vehemently argued by placing reliance on the cases referred hereinabove that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Trial Court framing charge unless there is glaring injustice. On the facts, these cases are distinguishable.
13. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge erred in framing charge under Section 306, IPC. The revision is allowed and the charge framed under Section 306, IPC is quashed.