J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) SO far as the offence punishable under Sec. 306 I. P. C. is concerned we would like to reproduce Sec. 306 I. P. C. which reads as follows:"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". It is established beyond reasonable doubt in the present case that the deceased committed suicide. But what is required further for bringing home the offence under Sec. 306 I. P. C. is to establish abetment on the part of the appellants. Section 107 I. P. C. speaks of abetment Neither Clause First nor Clause Secondly nor Explanation I to Clause Thirdly can be pressed into service in the present case because there is no question of instigation or engaging in any conspiracy or wilful misrepresentation etc. in the present case. At the most reliance can be placed upon Clause Thirdly and Explanation 2 to the said Clause. Clause Thirdly and Explanation 2 of Sec. 107 I. P. C. reads as under:"a person abets the doing of a thing who thirdly: Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXPLANATION 2: Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitates the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of that act". ( 2 ) FOR establishing abetment covered by Clause Thirdly read with Explanation 2 it has to be established that there was intentional aiding Mere aiding may not amount to abetment unless it is intentional Mere act or omission on the part of a person which in fact results in facilitating the commission of the offence will not satisfy the requirements of Explanation 2 of Clause Thirdly. What is required to he established is that the person against whom the charge of abetment is levelled has done something in order to facilitate the commission of the offence. What is therefore required is that the person against whom charge of abetment is levelled has to do something purposefully which facilitates the commission of the offence. What is required to he established is that the person against whom the charge of abetment is levelled has done something in order to facilitate the commission of the offence. What is therefore required is that the person against whom charge of abetment is levelled has to do something purposefully which facilitates the commission of the offence. Simply because a person does something or omits to do something which facilitates the commission of the offence he cannot be said to have intentionally aided the commission of the offence either by any act or illegal omission as contemplated by Clause Thirdly read with Explanation 2. In the present it case there is nothing on record to show that anything was done or that there was any illegal omission on the part of the appellants which would bring their act within Clause Thirdly read with Explanation 2. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Baxi submitted that the appellants intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased by going away from the house in order to facilitating the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no substance in this submission of Mr. Baxi because there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had left the house knowing that the deceased was likely to commit suicide. It is difficult to say that simply because the appellants and the mother-in-law of the deceased went out of the house in the morning they did so in order to facilitate the commission of suicide by the deceased though it is true that on account of the absence of the appellants and the mother-in-law of the deceased the deceased was successful in committing suicide. But that is not sufficient to bring home the charge of abetment under Clause Thirdly read with Explanation 2 There is nothing on record to show that in the past the deceased h8d done anything which would show that she was likely to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to show that there was any incident on the day of the incident or in the past which would show that the deceased was likely to commit suicide. It cannot be said with any stretch of imagination that a person subjecting a woman to cruelty is guilty of abetment. Section 306 I. P. C. and Sec. 498a I. P. C. are two independent Sections in the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be said with any stretch of imagination that a person subjecting a woman to cruelty is guilty of abetment. Section 306 I. P. C. and Sec. 498a I. P. C. are two independent Sections in the Indian Penal Code. While considering the guilt or otherwise of an accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 I. P. C. we have to read only Secs. 306 and 107 I. P. C. Section 498a I. P. C. is out of question so far as the question of abetment is concerned. In view of this it is difficult to support the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 306 I. P. C. That order of conviction and sentence is therefore required to be set aside. Appeal partly allowed. .