ORDER: This application under s. 401 read with s, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the charges framed against them under ss, 306/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional Sessions judge, 3rd Court. Howrah on 24589 in Sessions Trial No, IX(7) or 1986 as also the proceedings of the said trial, The facts leading to the trial are as under, 2. On May 15, 1983, one Bandana Dutta lodged a complaint with the Sibpur Police Station and on the basis thereof a case under ss, 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against six of the petitioners herein and two others, In her complaint, Bandana alleged, inter alia, that she was given in marriage with Phanibhusan of village Bator, P, S, Sibpur in Ashar 1989 BS in accordance with Hindu rites, Annakali (petitioner no, 1), stepmother of Phanibhusan, Tapan and Somenath (petitioner no, 2 and 4), his step-brothers and Bina and Rekha (petitioner no, 5 and 6), his step-sisters used to torture her as also her husband for which she (Bandana) returned to her parental home and Phanibhusan went to Kalyanpur, under the police Station of Bagnan, where he started a grocery shop, Occasionally Phanibhusan used to visit his paternal house at Bator, On 15,5,83 at or about 10,30 A, M, Tapan (petitioner no, 2) and Samir Dutra (petitioner no, 3), husband of petitioner no, 5, came to Bandana's parental home and informed her that Phanibhusan had been admitted to Howrah General Hospital but his condition was well. After asking her to go the Hospital to see her husband, they left the place. She then went to the hospital but could not find her husband. She, however, met the petitioner no. 4 and others near the Howrah General Post Office who told that her husband was keeping well. Thereafter, they sent her back to her parental home in a rickshaw. There she reported the matter to her brother Joydeb and others including one Harinarayan Chandra. Then at 6 P. M. she came to Sibpur Police Station with her brother Joydeb and Harinarayan and came to know that in the morning her husband died of poisoning at the Howrah General Hospital. Bandana suspected that the members of her husband's family, as named by her had conspired and killed her husband by administering poison. 3. Then at 6 P. M. she came to Sibpur Police Station with her brother Joydeb and Harinarayan and came to know that in the morning her husband died of poisoning at the Howrah General Hospital. Bandana suspected that the members of her husband's family, as named by her had conspired and killed her husband by administering poison. 3. On completion of investigation police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners under ss. 120B/302. 201 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the chargesheet infer alila, are that Phanibhusan demanded share in the paternal properties which was resented to by the petitioners that in the night of May 14, 1983 in course of a deliberation over the sharing of the paternal properties amongst the sons and daughters of Bistupada Dutta in the latter's house, there was a hot altercation between Phanibhusan and others; that thereafter Phanibhusan took his meals and left the house; that as he did not return within a reasonable time, Bistupada asked his sons to search for him; that Phanihhusan could not be traced in that night but on the following he was found by Somenath, Tapan and Nilmoni lying on a bench in the platform of Ramrajtala Railway Station with froth coming out of his mouth; and that they took him to Howrah General Hospital where he died after a few minutes. The further allegations in the chargesheet are that no information was sent to Bandana about the death of Phanibhusan nor was she told about it by the members of her husband's family whom she met near the Howrah Post Office. It has lastly been alleged therein that the dead body was recovered by the police from the burning ghat after the registration of the case and sent for post-mortem examination and the chemical examination of the viscera disclosed presence of poison (ddrin) ill the stomach of the deceased. 4. Pursuant to the submission of the chargesheet, the case was committed to the court of Session and then transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah for trial. By his order dated 11.5.87, the learned Judge framed chr1fges against the petitioners under ss. 120B/302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners move this Court in revision. By his order dated 14.8.87. By his order dated 11.5.87, the learned Judge framed chr1fges against the petitioners under ss. 120B/302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners move this Court in revision. By his order dated 14.8.87. this Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds, that the learned Judge did not apply his mind while framing the charges and that no charge under s.498A of the Indian Penal Code could be framed as it was not in the statute hook at the material time. With the above findings, this Court remanded the case back to the learned Judge for fresh consideration as to whether charges under ss. 120B/302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code could be framed against the petitioners or not. 5. On such remand, the learned trial Judge heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners and the State and in the light of the observations made by this Court held that there were no sufficient grounds for presuming that any of the petitioners had committed the offence of murder of Phanibhusan Dutta or hall entered into a conspiracy for the purpose. He however, held that there were materials to frame charges under s. 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against an the petitioners and a charge under s.201 of the Indian Penal Code against five of the petitioners and accordingly framed the following charges: "That on or about the 14th/15th May, 1983, one Phanibhusan Dutta of 237/1, Circular Road, P. S. Shibpur committed suicide somewhere between his aforesaid house and Ramrajatala Railway Station where he was found lying unconscious, and that you in furtherence of your common intention abated its commission by instigating and encroaching him to commit suicide by your violent acts, utterances and threats and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code; That you, on or about the 15th day of May 1983 at 237/1, Circular Road knowing or having reason to believe that certain offence to wit abatement to commit suicide punishable with an imprisonment for 10 years has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear by knowingly giving false information and doing acts with the intention of screeing yourselves from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code." 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the finding of the learned trial Judge that there were sufficient materials to frame the above charges is patently bad. To appreciate the above contention of the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the documents referred to under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the statements of witnesses recorded under s. 161 of the Code. On perusal thereof, I find that this is a fit case where this Court should invoke its inherent powers to quash the impugned charges and the proceeding arising therefrom. 7. In the context of the charge framed under s, 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be first ascertained whether there are materials to show, prima facie, that the death of Phanibhusan was suicidal. The doctor who held the post-mortem examination of the deceased, could not give any definite opinion as to whether the death was suicidal or not though poison was detected in his stomach. Even after receipt of the report of the chemical examination of the viscera, it was opined by the doctors that the deceased might have been administered poison or might have taken poison of his own. The prosecution however, seeks to rely upon a suicidal note left by the .deceased, but then the wife of the deceased, in her Statement, recorded under s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that the note was not in the handwriting of her husband. The document in question was, however, sent to Handwriting Expert and he has opined that it was in the hand writing of the deceased. For our present purpose, if the opinion of the Expert is accepted in preference to the positive assertion of the deceased's wife, it can be said that there in material to show that the deceased had committed suicide and in that context, the next question is whether there He materials to hold that the petitioners are prima facie, guilty for abetment of such suicide. 8. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the statements of four witnesses, namely, Barun Debnath, Swapan Sadhukhan, Uday Sadhukhan and Dipak Sadhukhan to hold that there are materials to indicate that the petitioners had abetted the commission of suicide by Phanibhusan. On perusal of their statements. 8. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the statements of four witnesses, namely, Barun Debnath, Swapan Sadhukhan, Uday Sadhukhan and Dipak Sadhukhan to hold that there are materials to indicate that the petitioners had abetted the commission of suicide by Phanibhusan. On perusal of their statements. I do not, however find any material to hold that a case of strong suspicion has even been made out against them. Their statements only indicate that the deceased, who used to live separately at a place called Kalyanpur, had come to the house of his step-mother within the police station of Sibpur in the evening of 145.83; that in the night he had an altercation with his step-brothers, step-sisters and others over share of family properties; that they told him that he would not get any such share and that they were going to take appropriate steps so that he might not come to their house in future. Materials further indicate that after taking his meals, the deceased left the house that very night and on the following morning, he was found lying unconscious on the platform of Ram Rajatala Railway Station, which is at a distance of 4 kilometres from the house of the petitioner no. I. He was thereafter removed to hospital and found dead. 9, In my considered view, from the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide after he was badly treated by the petitioners a case or strong suspicion regarding commission of an offence under s, 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out against the petitioners, As has been pointed out by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Pratima Dutta v. Stale reported in 81 CWN 713, ill-treatment or torture might produce a state of mind favourable to suicide but evidence of such torture or ill-treatement would not by itself be sufficient to sustain a charge under s. 306 of the Indian Penal Code unless there is evidence of incitement to end his life, According to the Division Bench there must be some evidence from which it can be said that the commission of suicide was the immediate effect of incitement. Owing to occasional torture and ill-treatment, someone may decide to take one's own life. Owing to occasional torture and ill-treatment, someone may decide to take one's own life. In such a case, the persons who meted out such torture and ill-treatment may nor be said to have abetted the commission of suicide. But if someone actively suggests or goads another to the act by express solicitation insinuation or encouragement, it would certainly amount to abetment of the act. It is of course true that it may be difficult to prove such element of abetment of commission of suicide but then without proof no person can be convicted. It is in that context that the legislature has enacted the provisions of s, 113A of the Evidence Act but then as that section has no manner of application in this case and as there is no material whatsoever to prove abetment of the commission of suicide, the charge under s. 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently the charge under s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, one of the ingredients of which is commission of an offence, cannot also be allowed to stand. 10, In the result, the application succeeds and same is hereby allowed. The impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. The petitioners who are on bail, are discharged from their respective bail bonds. Application allowed Proceeding quashed