1 2025:CGHC:9829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 270 of 2025 1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu @ Monau S/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Kirari, Police Station - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act) and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in 2 Sessions Case No.179/2024. By the impugned order, charges have been framed against the applicant under Section 306 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. 3. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that The deceased, namely, Meena Patel was in a love affair with the applicant, namely, Suresh Sahu. Despite warnings from her parents, they continued to meet, with Suresh assuring Meena of marriage. However, Suresh got engaged to another girl on April 4, 2024, which made Meena unhappy. On April 5, 2024, Suresh allegedly lured Meena to a school, where he convinced her to consume poison and then fled. Meena was hospitalized and died on April 6, 2024. The police registered an FIR against Suresh under Section 306 of IPC, and after investigation, charges were filed under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. The trial court framed charges against Suresh under Section 306 alternatively with Section 302 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the trial Court has erred in framing the charges against the present applicant under Section 306 and alternative offence 302 of IPC. He goes on to submit that in order to frame charges under Section 306 of IPC it must be prima facie established on the basis of cogent evidence on record that accused 3 committed such act(s) which compelled the deceased (Meena Patel) to commit suicide and there is no material evidence available on record which prima facie established that the present applicant has committed the offence like murder of deceased. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the dying declaration, made to witness Shubham Yadav and recorded under Section 161 CrPC, clearly implicates the applicant in having instigated and facilitated the act of consuming poison. He further submits that trial Court has rightly framed the above-stated charged in the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection and particularly went through the order impugned herein directing framing of charged against the petitioner. 7. It is crystal clear that the deceased (Meena Patel) narrated each and every fact to the witness Shubham Yadav with regard to commission of offence. 8. The statement of witness Shubham Yadav S/o Mangluram Yadav have been recorded by the Investigating Officer 4 under Section 161 of CrPC and it is pertinent to quote relevant portion of the said statement, which states as under:- "मैं उनके घर किकरारी सुबह 10.00 बजे करीबन पहुंचा देखा तो जयंत पटेल की छोटी बहन कु ० मीना पटेल उल्टी कर रही थी। जो बड़बड़ा रही थी वह जहर पी ली थी। मीना पटेल को पूछा तब वह बताई थी किक सुरेश साहू किनवासी किकरारी के साथ मेरी प्रेम प्रसंग था। सुरेश साहू ने मेरे साथ शादी करूं गा कहकर बोला था और वह खुद दूसरी लड़की से सगाई कर लिलया है। सुरेश साहू ने मुझको कन्या शाला मस्तूरी के पास बुलाया था और जहर लाकर किदया और तब मैं पी ली हूं और सुरेश साहू जहर नहीं पीया और वहां से भाग गया था।" 9. In view of the above, the statement of witness Shubham Yadav reveals that the deceased explicitly named the applicant, stating that he had promised to marry her, but got engaged to another woman. She further alleged that the applicant brought poison, persuaded her to consume it, and then fled. These facts, though subject to trial, do prima facie disclose the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The alternative framing under Section 302 IPC, while more severe, is not without basis, considering the alleged role of the applicant in actively procuring and inducing the deceased to consume poison. Therefore, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has applied judicial mind to the available material and rightly framed 5 the charges under Section 306 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. 10. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saxena Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA