1 / 4 2025:CGHC:57001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 45 of 2022 1 - Trilok Chand Jain S/o Late Dhigadmal Jain, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Village Surgi Police Chowki Surgi, District Rajnandgaon 2 - Dharmendra Kumar Jain S/o Trilok Chand Jain, Aged About 50 Years 3 - Devendra Jain @ Pappu Jain, S/o Trilok Chand Jain, Aged About 41 Years All R/o. Village Surgi Police Chowki Surgi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Police Chowki Surgi, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 24/11/2025 Heard. 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07/10/2021 passed in S.T. No.70/2021 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. whereby the charges under Section ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.04 11:21:54 +0530 2 / 4 306/34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Pawan Kumar Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself in his house on 09/09/2018. During the course of identification of body, 11 pages suicidal note was recovered. In the said suicidal note the deceased alleged that he is committing suicide because the present applicants who are the father, grandfather and uncle of one Payal Jain, with whom he was in love, are harassing him. On the basis of the said suicidal note, the police registered the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that from perusal of the charge-sheet it would be clear that the present applicants have been implicated in the crime only on the basis of the suicidal note of the deceased and apart from that nothing has been produced. She would next contend that no material is available to frame the charges against the applicants. She would next contend that none of the ingredients of Section 107 or 306 of IPC are present. In support of her contention she would place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of M. Mohan Vs. State {(2011) 3 SCC 626} and Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {(2010) 1 SCC CRL 917} and would submit that in order to convict a person for the offence under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens-rea to commit the offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the applicants may be discharged from the charges framed against them. 3 / 4 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that the order of framing charge is just and proper which do not require any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 107 of the IPC 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. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted at the stage of framing of charge. It is well-settled that at the stage of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or evaluate its probative value. The material has only to be examined with a view to ascertain whether, on a prima facie basis, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. 8. In the present case, the prosecution record contains specific allegations indicating abetment, including the circumstances preceding the death of the deceased, the conduct attributed to the applicants and the suicide note which has been recovered, create a suspicion regarding the 4 / 4 involvement of the applicants in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide. Whether such acts amount to direct or indirect abetment, or whether the deceased was hypersensitive, are matters that can only be assessed after the evidence is led during trial. 9. It is a trite law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into the defence of the accused, nor can it weigh the evidence as if conducting a full-fledged trial. If the material placed by the prosecution gives rise to a grave suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, the charge must be framed, and the accused must face trial. 10. In the present case, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the material in the charge-sheet, and the surrounding circumstances i.e. the suicide note, disclose the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the order of the learned trial Court. The contentions raised by the petitioner relate to contested questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a petition of the present nature and must be left to be established during the course of trial. 11. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu