1 2025:CGHC:58329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1438 of 2025 Raju Sarthi Urf Nanu S/o Photolal Sarthi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tarkela, Thana Jutmill, District Raigarh, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer (Sho), P.S. City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Case No.101/2025, by which the learned trial Court has passed an order so as to frame charges under Section 306 of IPC. Against the said order, the revisioner prefers this revision. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the revisioner is the resident of District Raigarh, C.G. after completion of his graduation degree, as he could not get VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.12.02 17:35:48 +0530 2 job so started Convenience store taking rental shop. The landlord of the rental shop, was the relative of deceased Kiran Sarthi. Kiran Sarthi was residing at Bilaspur for preparation and coaching of competitive examinations. The revisioner and the deceased Kirari Barthi come in contact when Kiran Sarthi visited the ship of the revisioner for mobile recharge. The introduction and conversation was held in between they shared their mobile numbers. Thereafter they were in contact affectionate relationship was developed. The revisioner and the deceased used to meet as per their convenience and pre plan at Raigarh and Bilaspur. Suddenly on 05/11/2023, Kiran Sarthi committed suicide by handing in her rental home situated at Tikrapara, Bilaspur, C.G. After receiving of that information the revisioner, his family members as well as other relatives of the deceased shocked and rushed at Bilaspur. The merg report was registered and as per the prosecution case, the investigation was started by the Police. 3. During investigation, one suicidal note was found at the house of the deceased. In suicidal note, certain allegations of having relation of the revisioner with other women is alleged. On the basis of which the FIR was registered on dated 20/01/2024 against the revisioner. The revisioner was arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court from where the case was committed for its trial before the learned Trial Court. On 14/10/2025, trial Court has passed an order as to frame charge u/s 306 of the IPC against the revisioner. Hence, this revision is being filed. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary no deserves to be quashed. The learned trial Court has failed to consider thei there is no evidence/allegation that the date on which the deceased had committed suicide at that time the revisioner was at Raigarh and not prior to that any conversation, quarrel or dispute was held between the deceased and the revisioner. The learned Trial Court has completely failed to consider that there is no any evidence of abetment for committing suicide of the deceased by the revisioner as to frame charges u/s 306 of the IPC. He further contended that in catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “For abetment to suicide, there must be a direct provocation or instigation close to the time of suicide A delayed and questionable suicide note without corroborative evidence is insufficient to convict someone under Section 306 IPC”. Apart from no evidence of direct coercion or threat close to the suicide date, the same is reported in 2025 (3) SCR 432 bearing parties Patel Babubhai Manohar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat. The relevant paragraphs is as under: “(40) This takes us to the suicide note (Ex. 33). We have already noted the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced which makes it highly suspect. Nonetheless, since it was exhibited, let us deal with the same. Sum and substance of the suicide note allegedly written by Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar (the deceased) with the date given as 24.04.2009 is that appellant No. 3 had joined his office following the illness of the existing cleaner. She used to come to the office daily for cleaning purposes. Slowly they developed intimacy. It is alleged that appellant No. 3 had performed Black art' on the deceased so much so that, he fell in love with her. Taking advantage of the situation, she took photographs 4 and video of them in compromising position. All the accused persons shameless persons. As they blackmailing him, he initially paid Rs. 80,000.00 were started to them and thereafter started giving them ornaments. He also gave them his passbook and cheque books after signing on the cheques. Because of such blackmailing, he had to misappropriate money from his office for which he was suspended. It is stated that he was totally ruined and, therefore, he had committed suicide as he had no other alternative. (41.) The suicide note was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. The Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert of FSL, Gandhinagar opined that the handwriting was of the deceased. However, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as an expert witness. The records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert. (45.) Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants. He further contended that in the instant case there is no any evidence against the revisioner as to frame the charges except the suicidal note in which also no any specific allegation has been made that the revisioner has acted or did any abetment for committing her suicide.” 5. The learned trial Court has completely failed to consider that none of the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is available as to frame the charge under Section 306 of IPC. The learned Court below has also erred in not considering the statement of the parents of the deceased that the deceased was suffering from chronic piles disease apart from none of the witness has stated that the 5 deceased had made complaint against the revisioner relating to any issue prior to her committing suicide or just before the incident. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass an order as to set aside the order dated 14/10/2025 (Annexure P-1) by allowing this revision. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. On perusal of record, I have found that the learned trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioners under Section 306 of IPC. On perusal of the record, I have found that there is a dying declaration against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is a witness Kumari Usha Nikunj has categorically made statement. The relevant part of her statement is reproduced as under : " दूसरे दिन दिन क 06.11.2023 क सबह पुलिस वा किकरेण क पुरिरेवारे वा क सथ पुुሻ चकरे कमरे क खोकरे तशी लिये जान पुरे एक डायेरे# म लिखो ससईडा नट मिम जिजासम रेजा( सरेथ एवा उसक पुरिरेवारे वा क अपुन म+त क जिजाम्मरे हन लिखो थ। घटन क क छ दिन पु(वा0 स किकरेण कफी2 ज्ये मनलिसक एवा शीरे#रिरेक रूपु स पुरेशीन रेहत थ। मरे ቛኋरे पु(छन पुरे किकरेण न बतये किक मरे ाሙ वा क रेजा( सरेथ नम क ड़क मझे बुሻत पुरेशीन करेत ह9 औरे उसन मरे ቛኋरे जिजा करेक पु(छन पुरे बतये किक मरे सथ रेजा( सरेथ न अन9मितक सम्बन्ध भी बनये जिजासक करेण वाह मरे सथ बुሻत ाሙत ुሻआ ह9 जिजासक करेण म? समजा एवा पुरिरेवारे म म ह दिखोन येक नह@ रेह ाሙई 6 ूሺB। तथ वाह येह भी बत रेह थ किक रेजा( सरेथ क स ब ध किकस दूसरे# मकिह क सथ भी स ब ध ह9, जिजासक बरे म मझे क छ दिन पुह ह बतये थ जिजासक करेण स किकरेण बुሻत ह पुरेशीन एवा ाሙमसम ाሙमसम रेहत थ। किकरेण अपुन बनम क करेण ह पुरेशीन हकरे फी स ाሙकरे आत्म हत्ये करे । 9. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the record that there is ingredients of Section 107 of IPC against the applicant at the time of framing of charge, the Court looks into the matter only that whether prima facie offence made out against the accused which does not mean to convict the accused persons, therefore, on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. 10. On perusal of the records, prima facie it reveals that case is made out against the applicant and on perusal of the records, I have not found any illegality, any perversity or any jurisdictional error in the order of the trial Court. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order passed by the Court below. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant