1 2025:CGHC:16606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 450 of 2025 Balaji Jaiswal S/o Vishram Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o Birkona, Police Station - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pipariya Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamlakant Shukla S/o Shri H.L. Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Pipariya, Police Station - Pipariya Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.11 19:46:46 +0530 2 short ‘BNSS 2023’) against the impugned order dated 16.12.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024, whereby the charge for the offence under Section 306 in alternative 306/34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham for the offence under Section 306 in alternative 306/34 of IPC, which has been arising out of the Crime No. 318 of 2024, registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham. 3. The allegation against the present petitioner/accused is that on 06.05.2024, the deceased Komal Sahu has committed suicide at Charotha Khar, village Dharampura by hanging himself in a babool tree. The merg was reported to the police and considering the injuries appears in the dead body sand on being public agitation, a special team for inquiry was constituted by the orders of Home Department, State of Chhattisgarh and the inquiry report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police on 05.10.2024 and it was reported that his death was suicidal in nature. It was also reported that the wife of the deceased Revti Bai and the present petitioner/accused are the abettor to commit suicide. From the statement of the witnesses, it also comes that the wife of the deceased was having relation with the petitioner/accused and she scolded the deceased before the petitioner on many occasions, 3 which caused him annoyed and therefore, he committed suicide. On 07.10.2024, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the co-accused Smt. Revti Bai and after due investigation charge sheet was filed and criminal case was registered against the accused persons, in which the charge for the offence under Section 306 in alternative 306/34 of IPC has been framed on 16.12.2024, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no sufficient evidence against the petitioner to frame charge against him and to proceed with the trial. Only the vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner. There is no evidence that he instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such gravity that it is intended to drag the deceased to take such an extreme step to commit suicide and he has no other option, but to commit suicide. Such instigation should also be within the close proximity to the act of suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are completely missing in the present case. She would also submit that there is no whisper of evidence that the deceased was instigated by the petitioner to commit suicide. Although it has come in the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner is having illicit relation with the wife of the deceased, but that itself does not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. In support of her submission, she relied upon a judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by Gujarat High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (For quashing and set aside FIR/order) 4 No. 5798 of 2017 with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6103 of 2017 (Dr. Rajeshkumar Somabhai Katara, Assistant Professor, Micro-Biology v. State of Gujarat and Another). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the prima facie material is to be considered, as to whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial or not. The trial Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence on record, but to consider the prima facie material to proceed with the trial. In the statement of the witnesses, it comes that on the date of incident the petitioner/accused was with the deceased and his wife, they consumed the liquor. On the next morning, the wife of the deceased informed her children about missing of the deceased. On 07.05.2024, they received a WhatsApp message about the suicide committed by the deceased. Certain injuries have also been noticed by the witnesses on the dead body of the deceased and the wife of the deceased tried to conceal the presence of the present petitioner in their house. The continuous and consistent conduct of the accused persons compelled the deceased to commit suicide as he felt annoyed by the illicit relation of his wife with the present petitioner/accused and he was being scolded regularly by his wife. Therefore, there is sufficient prima facie material available in the charge sheet to frame charge against the petitioner/accused, and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified, which needs no interference. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. It is necessary to quote here the relevant provisions of law in the present case i.e. Section 107 of IPC, which defines “abetment” and Section 306 of IPC, which provides punishment for abetment of suicide, which reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in 6 order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. A bare reading of the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC, would reveal that for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, twin conditions are required to be fulfilled namely; suicide and abetment to commit suicide. Commission of suicide is not made punishable, because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person, who is culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment, whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by the law. 9. In the light of aforementioned legal provisions, I have examined the facts of the present case to find out, whether the allegations made in the case against the petitioner, prima facie, constitute the alleged offence or the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arise at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case. In the present case, apart from the merg inquiry, the police have recorded the statements of Sundar Sahu (father-in-law of the deceased), Akash Sahu (son of the deceased), Nehru Sahu (nephew of the deceased), Falit Sahu (cousin brother of 7 the deceased), Manoj Sahu (cousin brother of the deceased), Poshan @ Sonu Sahu (nephew of the deceased), Dilip Sahu (cousin brother of the deceased), Ravindra Sahu (nephew of the deceased), Mukesh Sahu, Nakul Sahu, Vishwanath Sahu, Lekhu Ram Sahu, Ramadhar Sahu, Ishwari Sahu, Hem Singh Chandrawanshi and other witnesses, who stated about the behaviour and conduct of the accused persons. In the statements of these witnesses, it comes that due to the behaviour of the accused persons, the deceased became annoyed and committed suicide. From the statement of Akash Sahu (son of the deceased), it also came that on 05.05.2024, the present petitioner, came to his house by jump over the boundary wall from back side. He along with his mother and father consumed the liquor and he went for a sleep. In the next morning, his mother has informed about missing of the deceased and despite his search in the village, he could not be found. On 07.05.2024, he received a WhatsApp message about death of his father. At the time of inquest, he noticed injuries on his body. On the 10th day function of the death of his father, his mother asked him, not to disclose the name of the petitioner in the inquiry and his mother has also scolded him. He also stated that his mother has regularly raised quarrel with his father. From the statement of Nehru Sahu and Falit Sahu and other witnesses, there are sufficient material against the petitioner for framing of the charge. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles in the case of “State of M.P. vs. Deepak” 2019 (13) SCC 62, wherein it has 8 been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. It is also held that the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and at the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. In the matter of Deepak (Supra), in its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “14. It is of relevance to refer to certain judgments of this Court. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), the appellant and two other individuals were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the appellant and the other accused persons had forcibly compelled the deceased to sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by the trial court. The two-Judge Bench of this Court laid down the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. D.K. Jain, J. held thus: (SCC p. 611, para 19) "19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 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 9 "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted 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, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation." (emphasis supplied) 15. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court noted that prima facie, the offence of abetment of suicide was made out (Chitresh Kumar Chopra case, SCC p. 612, para 22) "22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore. clause Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted." (emphasis supplied) 10 16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence: (Chitreth Kumar Chopra case, SCC p. 613, para 25) "25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction" 17. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, in Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P noted that in accordance with Section 227, the High Court must ascertain whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused of there is ground for "presuming that the offence has been committed. G.P. Mathur. J. held thus: (SCC p. 56, paras 9-10) "9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia the Court while examining the scope of Section 227 held as under: '14. Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he 11 considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused The "ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquity in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evadentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime." 10. The High Court, did not at all apply the relevant text, namely whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed as offence. If the answer is in the affirmative an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face the trial. The High Court after merely observing that 'as the firing was aimed at the other persons and accidentally the deceased Pooja Balmiki was passing through that way and she was hit and further observing that the applicant neither intended to kill the deceased nor was she aimed at because of the reason that she was a Scheduled Caste set aside the order by which the charges had been framed against Respondent 2. There can be no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 301 IPC have been completely ignored and the relevant criteria for judging the validity of the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing framing of charges have not been applied. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside." (emphasis supplied) 12 11. In the matter of “Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf and Others” 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 of its judgment that:- “12. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap³ Relevant paras are extracted below: (SCC pp. 197-98, para 11) "11....11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to f sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if g the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed. he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter s the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of 13 evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11.2 to the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. MR. Memah, one of us (D. Y. Chandrachud, J) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: (SCC p. 526) '25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 219 CPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (N. Suresh Rajan case, SCC 721-22, para 20) "29....... At this stage, 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 the offence on t committed the the basis of the 14 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." 12. Further, in the matter of “State by SP through the SPE, CBI vs. Uttamchand Bohra”, 2022 (16) SCC 663, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 of its judgment that:- “21. In CBI v. K. Narayana Rao this Court, after reviewing the previous decisions that dealt with the question of the applicable standard relating to discharge of accused in a criminal case, summarised the principles in the following terms: (SCC pp. 520-23, paras 12-14) "12. The first decision in Ramesh Singh relates to interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code for the considerations as to discharge the accused or to proceed with trial. Para 4 of the said judgment is pressed into service which reads as under: (SCC pp. 41-42) '4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 15 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which.... (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the 16 contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.' 13. Discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Code was extensively considered by this Court in P. Vijayan wherein it was held as under. (SCC pp. 401-402, paras 10-11) '10... ..If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise 17 his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact. It is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter of into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the 9 evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him." 14. While considering the very same provisions i.e. framing of charges and discharge of the accused, again in Sajjan Kumar, this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 375-77, paras 19-21) '19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that 18 the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 20. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. 19 (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face valuc disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel 20 truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal." 13. The Hon’ble supreme Court has further held in para 12 of its judgment in the case of “State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao”, 2023 SCC Online SC 1294, that:- “12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of 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 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 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." 14. In the matter of “State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others” 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into 21 the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 15. In view of the above principles, it is quite clear that there are allegations against the petitioner that by the continuous course of conduct of the accused persons, which creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. The petitioner/accused and the co-accused kept the deceased annoyed and irritated continuously, which forced him to take such an extreme step to commit suicide. In the present case, from the statement of the son of the deceased and other witnesses, Nehru Sahu, Falit Sahu, Manoj Sahu, Poshan @ Sonu Sahu, Dilip Sahu, Ravindra Sahu, Mukesh Sahu, Nakul Sahu, Vishwanath, Rajkumar, Durgesh Sahu, Pawan Gadhewal, Tilak Ram Sahu, Jagtu Ram Chandrawanshi, Heera Ram Sinha, Lekhu Ram Sahu, Ramadhar Sahu, Ishwari Sahu, Hem Singh Chandrawanshi and other witnesses, the prima facie ingredients of the offence of Section 306 of IPC is clearly reveals for framing of charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. From the statement of the witnesses, it also reveals that the deceased was annoyed and the witnesses have tried to convince him, but he could not bear the annoyance. The conduct of the accused persons clearly demonstrates the continuous course of their act and annoyance of the deceased, under which he committed suicide. It is not a simple case that the petitioner is having illicit relation with the wife of the 22 deceased, but it is a case, where the deceased was being scolded by his wife in presence of the petitioner repeatedly and continued her relation with him. 16. After considering the material available in the charge sheet and the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that there are sufficient ground for framing of charge and to proceed with the trial and has framed the charge for the offence under Section 306 in alternative 306/34 of IPC, which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the facts of the case calling for an interference invoking revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 conferred upon this Court. 17. No benefit can be extended to the petitioner from the judgment of “Dr. Rajeshkumar Somabhai Katara” (supra), as the facts of the present case are distinguishable with that case. 18. In the result, the petition does not have any merit, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved