Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 56 (HP)

Sohni Devi v. State of H. P.

2024-01-09

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner Sohni Devi is the mother of Sunil Kumar, who was married to Sapna, respondent No.2 in January 2016. Sunil Kumar and Sapna started residing separately from the petitioner Sohni Devi. The relationship between Sunil Kumar and Sapna Devi was not cordial. Sapna had made a complaint against her brothers-in-law and sister-in-law regarding the demand for dowry. The police called the parties and the matter was compromised. Suman Chaudhary, Ex-Pradhan and Prem Singh, Ward Member tried to patch up the matter between Sunil and Sapna; however, the situation did not improve. Sapna used to leave her matrimonial home for her parental home. Sunil used to say that he was residing separately from his family due to Sapna. Sapna had harassed Sunil Kumar mentally. Sarwan Kumar, the younger brother of Sapna took her to her maternal home on 2.2.2017. Sunil Kumar came to his home on 6.2.2017, at 4.00 PM and started talking to Sapna. He told her to return to her matrimonial home otherwise she would see the dead body of Sunil. Sunil came out of the room and started vomiting. He was taken to the hospital where he died. The death of Sunil Kumar had taken place due to the acts of respondent No.2. The police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and prepared a challan against Sapna which was presented before the Court. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused Sapna was residing separately in her parent’s home at the time of the death of Sunil Kumar. She had no nexus with the death of Sunil. There should be evidence of abetment suggesting that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of the witnesses were insufficient to show that there was instigation on the part of the accused. Mere harassment without any positive action will not constitute the abetment. The material on record even if unrebutted is insufficient to show any instigation. Hence, the learned Trial Court discharged the accused. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, two separate revisions have been preferred — one by the informant-complainant and the other by the State. In the revision preferred by the informant, it was asserted that the learned Trial Court could not weigh the evidence while deciding whether to frame the charges or not. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, two separate revisions have been preferred — one by the informant-complainant and the other by the State. In the revision preferred by the informant, it was asserted that the learned Trial Court could not weigh the evidence while deciding whether to frame the charges or not. The learned Trial Court had to see whether there were sufficient grounds for putting the accused on trial. Even a gross suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges. The entire evidence was discussed which was not permissible. Where the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was not left with any other option but to commit suicide, Section 306 of IPC is attracted. The accused was harassing the deceased. The deceased had tried to contact the accused many times, and call detail records corroborate this fact. Mere absence from the home was not sufficient to discharge the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be set aside. 4. In the revision preferred by the State, it has been asserted that the statement of the informant is sufficient to frame the charge. The case was not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt at the stage of framing the charges. The acts of the accused should be sufficient to provoke the deceased to take his life. Evaluation of the evidence is not permissible at the stage of framing charges and the Court has to see whether the evidence existing is sufficient to put the accused to trial or not. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5. I have heard Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel for the accused. 6. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the petitioner. There was sufficient material on record to frame the charge. The witnesses specifically stated that the deceased used to say that he was fed up with the accused and would have taken his life. Learned Trial Court erred in evaluating the evidence. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the petitioner. There was sufficient material on record to frame the charge. The witnesses specifically stated that the deceased used to say that he was fed up with the accused and would have taken his life. Learned Trial Court erred in evaluating the evidence. It was wrongly held that the instigation or provocation is necessary to establish the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. If the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was not left with any choice but to take his life, the case would have been covered under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1-State adopted these submissions and submitted that the learned Trial Court was to see the prima facie evidence. Learned Trial Court discussed the evidence as if the evidence was being evaluated after the conclusion of the trial. This approach led to the error in the judgment; therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. Mr Surinder Verma, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the evidence even if accepted in its entirety will not establish the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. When two views are possible, the charge cannot be framed and the learned Trial Court was justified in discharging the accused. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao 2023 SCC Online 1294 that at the time of framing of the charge the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case has been made out for proceeding with the trial or not. It is not necessary to examine the defence of the accused. It was observed:- 7. Dilip Singh Kishore Singh Rao 2023 SCC Online 1294 that at the time of framing of the charge the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case has been made out for proceeding with the trial or not. It is not necessary to examine the defence of the accused. It was observed:- 7. It is trite law that the application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the chargesheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O. 10. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held: “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this stage.” 11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. 11. In the present case, the informant had specifically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased and he was mentally disturbed. Even on the date of the incident, he was talking to the accused and asking her to return to her matrimonial home otherwise she would see his dead body. 12. Police recorded the statements of various witnesses. Kaka Ram, brother of the deceased stated that Sunil was fed up with his wife Sapna Devi. Sapna Devi used to leave her matrimonial home for her parental home. 13. Netar Singh stated that Sunil Kumar was fed up with his wife because she used to quarrel with him. Sapna used to leave her matrimonial home in the absence of Sunil. 14. Vipin Arya stated that Sunil told him that Sapna had left the home and she made him very frustrated. Sunil was frustrated with his wife due to which he committed suicide. 15. Radha Devi stated that Sunil Kumar was frustrated with his wife. He was talking to Sapna and was asking her whether she wanted to visit her matrimonial home or not. Sunil was frustrated with his wife due to which he committed suicide. 16. Meena Devi, a neighbour of the parties, stated that Sapna did not talk to any villagers. 15. Radha Devi stated that Sunil Kumar was frustrated with his wife. He was talking to Sapna and was asking her whether she wanted to visit her matrimonial home or not. Sunil was frustrated with his wife due to which he committed suicide. 16. Meena Devi, a neighbour of the parties, stated that Sapna did not talk to any villagers. She used to bolt herself in a room and threatened to kill herself. Sunil was frustrated with the attitude of his wife. He had told her many times that he was frustrated with his wife and he would commit suicide someday. 17. Snehlata also stated that accused Sapna used to quarrel with Sunil. Sunil was frustrated with his wife due to which he had committed suicide. 18. Similar statements were made by Daya Ram and Manu. 19. Raju stated that Sunil Kumar came to him and asked about his brother. Sunil Kumar had told him (Raju) that his wife used to harass him and he had become sad due to the same. 20. Lalit Kumar also stated that Sapna used to quarrel with Sunil. He had told him (Lalit Kumar) repeatedly that Sapna had made him very sad, due to which he would commit suicide. 21. Thus, all the witnesses stated that the deceased was frustrated with his wife due to which he committed suicide. It was submitted that the statements of many witnesses are the expression of their opinion that Sunil had committed suicide after being frustrated with his wife. This is correct but Meena Devi has categorically stated that Sunil Kumar told her many times that he was frustrated with his wife and he would commit suicide some day. Sunil Kumar expressed his frustration with many of the witnesses. A statement made to Meena Devi that Sunil was frustrated with his wife and he would commit suicide would be admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act being a circumstance related to the death of a person, therefore, the same could not have been ignored at this stage. 22. The learned Trial Court held that in order to attract the position of Section 306 of IPC, there must be instigation which was lacking in the present case. 22. The learned Trial Court held that in order to attract the position of Section 306 of IPC, there must be instigation which was lacking in the present case. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geo Varghese Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr., JT 2021 (10) SC 36 that when the accused had created such circumstances, that the deceased was left with no other option to commit suicide, a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out. It was observed:- “16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about initiate, or incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 has defined the word 'instigate' as under:- "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act." 17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its corelation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 it was observed as under:- "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-judge Bench of this Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427 while considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306 IPC has observed as under:- "47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33 CrPC. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation ‘and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law. Clearly, therefore, the High Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal(Bhajan Lal) include a situation where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. This legal position was recently reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra. 48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a fundamental issue, which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant's prayer for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant's prayer for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task." 19. In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 a two-judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of Section 306 IPC in the following words:- "The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.PC. are (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such an act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 3061.P.C." 20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following words:- "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, the mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted the commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation, which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." 21. We may also refer to a two-judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr., (2019) 13 SCC 598 wherein the judgement rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher who used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the following observations:- "We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her these allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during the investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made a definite allegation against the first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and a charge sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect of whether there was a requisite mental element or intention on the part of the respondent." In the above-quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected to by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact, he had actively facilitated the commission of suicide. 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused are otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.” 23. This position was reiterated in Mahinder K.C. Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2021 SC 5711 and it was held:- “The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. This position was reiterated in Mahinder K.C. Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2021 SC 5711 and it was held:- “The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 , a three-judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice RC Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), observed: "20. 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 the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 24 A two-judge Bench of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2009 16 SCC 605 ), speaking through Justice DK Jain, observed: "19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) The accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what the cause of suicide is has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidality pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors is a crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or escapism from intolerable self." This has been reiterated in the decision in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, 2010 1 SCC 707 where it has been observed: "12. [ ] It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." (See also in this context the judgments in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 9 SCC 734 Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 7 SCC 781 M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By Its Inspector of Police), 2019 3 SCC 315 , Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 17 SCC 301 Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana, 2020 15 SCC 359 and Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2020 10 SCC 200 . These decisions have been recently referred to in the judgment of this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 2 SCC 427 ).” 24. Similar is the judgment in Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Versus Inspector of Police AIR 2022 SC 4994 wherein it was observed : 25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. Similar is the judgment in Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Versus Inspector of Police AIR 2022 SC 4994 wherein it was observed : 25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which are as under: - "The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.PC. are (i) the abetment; (77) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such an act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C." 26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 I PC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed as under:- "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted the commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." 25. In the present case, it was duly established by the material collected by the police that the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased, due to which the deceased was fed up with her and this led to his suicide. 26. In the present case, it was duly established by the material collected by the police that the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased, due to which the deceased was fed up with her and this led to his suicide. 26. The call detail records show that the accused and the deceased were consistently in touch with each other. Therefore, even if they were physically separate as concluded by the learned Trial Court, they were in touch with each other. Hence, mere physical separation is not sufficient to discharge the accused. 27. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip Singh (supra) that the power of the Court to examine the record to satisfy itself about the legality and regularity of any proceeding is not an appellate power. It cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The Court will be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the order framing charge unless a clear case of interference is made out. It was observed:- 13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 14. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has also laid down principles to be considered for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397, particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr. P.C. is sought for as under: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 15. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 15. The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge. 28. In the present case, the uncontroverted allegations prima facie established that the accused had harassed the deceased due to which he had taken his life. Hence, the necessary ingredients for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC were made out and the learned Trial Court erred in holding otherwise. 29. Hence, the present revisions are allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. 30. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court for framing charge for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC as per the law. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 05.03.2024. 31. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.