Handwriting in suicide note attributing responsibility without proof of instigation cannot sustain a charge of abetment.

The deceased, Sanjay alias Banti Garg, committed suicide on 15.09.2023

Two suicide notes were recovered; the first implicated a government officer for bribery/harassment, and the second implicated the applicants, alleging they collected monthly investment deposits from 2017 to 2022 but had not returned the promised sum of ₹3,00,000

Based on these notes, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the IPC

The applicants filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, on 24.09.2024, leading to the framing of charges

The applicants challenged these orders, noting that a co-accused (Monika Jain) had already been discharged by the High Court in a separate revision

1. Whether the allegations in the suicide note and the material in the charge sheet satisfy the ingredients of "abetment" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC

2. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the discharge application of the applicants

Section 306 of the IPC, which penalizes the abetment of suicide

Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid

The precedent of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010), which holds that a conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained without credible evidence of active incitement or instigation, and framing charges without such material is a travesty of justice

The Court scrutinized the second suicide note and observed that it merely described a financial transaction/investment and requested that the money be paid to the deceased’s family after his death

The Court reasoned that for an offense under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid

Merely being named as a "reason" for suicide due to financial disputes does not constitute abetment, as the deceased had legal remedies available for the non-refund of money and the applicants' actions could not be construed as instigating the act of suicide

The Court noted that the co-accused had already been discharged on similar grounds, and the applicants' case stood on a similar or better footing

The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders dated 24/09/2024 passed by the trial court. Consequently, the applicants were discharged from the offense