OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite the suicide note written by the deceased Akhilesh, which was perused by this Court and which appears to have been written in a balanced state of mind, cannot lead to abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC because the averments made in the said suicide note cannot amount to instigation by the present Petitioners in any manner leading to commitment of suicide by deceased Akhilesh. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan,2000 CLR 358, where in a fight between two brothers, one rebuked the other for the share of expenses for jointly owned well to go and die in the same well and the other said brother really committed suicide by jumping in the well and the Court held that there was no instigation or mens rea on the part of the brother, who has alleged to have instigated and charged of offence under Section 306 IPC and allowed the revision petition quashing the said charge.

(3.) In Sanju v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC(Cri) 1141 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite, however, presence of mesn rea is necessary for such instigation and in the absence of the same, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of High Court under Section 482 refusing quashing of charge sheet and quashed the said charge of 306 IPC.