2009 (8) TMI 1284 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed; charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC upheld for conduct causing pressure and mental torture

Chitresh Kumar Chopra Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the HC's refusal to interfere with the trial court's order framing charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of framing charges u/s 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. Interpretation of 'abetment' and 'instigation' under IPC.3. Evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges.Summary:1. Legality of Framing Charges u/s 306 read with Section 34 of IPC:This appeal by special leave challenges the High Court's judgment dismissing the appellant's Criminal Revision Petition, which upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's order framing charges against the appellant for the offence u/s 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased, who was his business partner, as per FIR No. 329 of 2002.2. Interpretation of 'Abetment' and 'Instigation' under IPC:Section 306 IPC requires the prosecution to establish that a person committed suicide and that such suicide was abetted by the accused. The parameters of 'abetment' are defined in Section 107 IPC, which includes instigating any person to do that thing, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the act. The Court referred to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, explaining that instigation involves provoking, inciting, or encouraging someone to do an act. The Court emphasized that mere words uttered in anger without intention do not constitute instigation.3. Evaluation of Evidence at the Stage of Framing Charges:The Court noted that at the stage of framing charges, the material on record should be evaluated to see if it discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The trial court observed that the evidence suggested the deceased was under tremendous pressure due to business transactions with the accused, leading to mental torture and ultimately suicide. The trial court inferred that the appellant had 'instigated' the deceased to commit suicide, thus justifying the framing of charges. The High Court's dismissal of the Revision Petition was upheld, noting the limited scope of revisional powers u/s 401 of the Code.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court correctly framed charges against the appellant and the High Court rightly dismissed the Revision Petition. The Court clarified that its observations should not influence the merits of the ongoing trial.