JUDGMENT
Mohd. Yamin, J.
1. This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali dated 22.4.1992 by which he framed charges under Sections 306, 330, 452, 148, 149, 323 IPC against the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.6.1991 Deva lodged first information report to the effect that on 9.6.1991 at about 12 ‘O’ clock in the noon Panna, Tara and Kali fell down in a well and died. According to the endorsement on this report he told the police that he had doubt that these persons committed suicide. An inquiry was conducted under Section 174 Cr. P.C. which revealed that all these three persons died on 9.6.1991 due to drowning. A complaint was lodged before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bali on 16.7.1991 which was forwarded to the Station House Office of the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. According to it a theft was committed in the house of Heera in the night of 7.6.1991. All the accused persons caught hold of Chamna son of Bhura and voluntarily caused hurt to extort confession of the guilt. All of them had entered into the house of Smt. Bani on 8.6.1991 armed with lethal weapons and gave beatings to her husband Bhura, her son Tara, her daughter Kali and complainant itself. They tied Panna, Kali and Tara with a rope and asked them to either return the goods of theft or pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of 24 hour. They also threatened that in case they did not do so, they would not be spared alive. Panna, Tara and Kali cried. It were Kana and Kesa who came and rescued with the result Panna, Tara and Kali fell down in a well and thus committed suicide.
3. Police, after investigation submitted challan against the petitioners and learned Magistrate committed it to the learned Sessions Judge who after hearing both the parties framed charges as stated above.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the charges under Sections 330, 323 or of forming unlawful assembly and committing riot. His only argument is that no case under Section 306 IPC is made out. He cited a number of rulings, the substance of which is that for framing a charge under Section 306 IPC there should be evidence to the effect of abetment and to the effect that there should be mens rea or intention for the purpose. My attention was drawn to two recent judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) page 141. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs State of M.P. and Anr. and 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) page 152. Chanchal Kumari and Ors. Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh. In Swamy Prahaladdas’s case (supra) there was a quarrel in which appellant remarked the deceased to go and die. Deceased committed suicide at his home. It was held that the words were casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of moment. There was no mens rea reflected from the act. So one of the ingredients for offence under Section 306 IPC is mens rea which is the basis of every criminal act. In Chanchal Kumari’s case (supra) there was no dependable evidence in regard to actual abetment and there was no intention to abet the suicide. What comes out is that there should be intention or mens rea for such an offence. There is no evidence in this case that the petitioners had abetted the suicide. For the offence of extortion of confession, there is an independent charge under Section 330 IPC which has not been challanged by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Counsel has not challenged the other charges framed against the petitioner.
6. In the result, offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the charge under Section 306 IPC is quashed. The other charges framed against the petitioners are triable by Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge is directed to pass consequential order for trial of the case as per provisions of Section 228 Cr. P.C.