JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The accused/appellant stands convicted under section 306 of I.P.C. for having abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Gopal Das and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- (Two hundred and fifty), by judgment dt. 1.9.1997 in ST. No. 95/97 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti. 2. Deceased Gopal Das and his wife Devkibai (P.W.5) belong to Bairagi community and were pojaris of temple of Lord Shiv situate at 'Bade Kate Koni', Police Station Dabra. The said temple belongs to the family of accused/appellant. The deceased alongwith his wife Devkibai (P.W.5) had started living separately from his father Jagatdas (P.W. 12) from about a fortnight before the incident. The accused/appellant was a friend of deceased Goapl Das and was on visiting terms with him. 3. The prosecution case stated in brief is that deceased was a Mechanic and used to go out of village frequently. On 18.11.96 while the deceased Gopal Das had gone out and his wife Devkibai (P.W.5) Was alone in her house at night, the accused/appellant came inside the house. The house was locked from inside by him In the meanwhile the deceased Gopal Das returned back and asked his wife to open the door. She however did not do so. The deceased knocked and pushed the door and opened it. The accused/appellant who was inside the house came out of the house and escaped. The deceased complained of this incident to other villagers. 4. The prosecution case further is that the deceased Gopal Das entertained suspicion about the illicit relationship between the accused/appellant and his wife Devkibai (P.W.5). On 3.12.96 the deceased came back from work. He brought a tin of some pesticide. He said to his wife Devkibai (P.W.5) that he had consumed the contents of the tin and she also should consume the remaining contents of the tin. He thrusted the contents in the mouth of Devkibai (P.W.5). However Devkibai (P.W.5) did not consume the contents of the tin. Thereafter the deceased fell down and died. Devkibai (P.W.5) informed her father-in-law Jagatdas (P.W.12) as also other persons about the said incident. Jagatdas (P.W. 12) the father of deceased reported to the police about the incident, which was recorded as merg intimation (Ex.P. 13). The police during enquiry prepared inquest report (Ex.P-2) on the dead body of Gopal Das. Thereafter the deceased fell down and died. Devkibai (P.W.5) informed her father-in-law Jagatdas (P.W.12) as also other persons about the said incident. Jagatdas (P.W. 12) the father of deceased reported to the police about the incident, which was recorded as merg intimation (Ex.P. 13). The police during enquiry prepared inquest report (Ex.P-2) on the dead body of Gopal Das. The body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. N.P. Mishra (P.W.10) conducted postmortem examination. According to him the death was caused on account of asphyxia due to poisonous substance. Postmortem report is (Ex.P. 11). The written notes by way of dying declarations, marked as Article A and B were seized from the person of deceased. After concluding investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused/appellant by Police Dabra, District Bilaspur. 5. Learned trial Court framed charge under section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused/appellant for having abetted Gopal Das to commit suicide. The accused/appellant abjured guilt. The learned trial Court after scrutiny and assessment of evidence held that the accused/appellant had illicit relations with Devkibai (P.W.5), due to which the deceased was in state of mental torture, as is evident from the written notes Article A and B. In view of above it was held that it amounted to instigation and thus constitutes abetment to deceased to commit suicide. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has challenged the conviction as above of accused/appellant under Section 306 of I.P.C. It has been urged that there is no justification for inference that the accused/appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased as the prosecution evidence does not establish that the accused/appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. However, the learned counsel for respondent/State has supported the finding of conviction as well as the sentence of accused/appellant. 7. It may be noticed that Devkibai (P.W.5) wife of deceased has stated that about 8 or 10 days prior to the incident, while she was alone with children in her house, the accused/appellant came inside the house. In the morning her husband Gopal Das came and asked her to open the door. Since she was feeding her child, there was some delay in opening the door, upon which the deceased pushed the door and opened it, whereupon accused/appellant came out from the house and escaped. She further stated that a panchayat was held in connection with the above incident. 8. Since she was feeding her child, there was some delay in opening the door, upon which the deceased pushed the door and opened it, whereupon accused/appellant came out from the house and escaped. She further stated that a panchayat was held in connection with the above incident. 8. Balram (P.W.1) the son of the deceased has stated that in the absence of his father, the appellant had entered his house and remained with his mother. His statement would clearly indicate that the accused/appellant had illicit relations with his mother and that the father had caught the appellant virtually red handed, while he was with his mother Devkibai (P.W.5). He has also proved the written note Article A and B by the deceased. From the above notes also it appears that the accused/appellant had illicit relations with the wife of deceased and the deceased has also narrated the incident of having found the appellant with his wife. 9. In view of the above oral evidence and written notes of dying declaration Article 'A' and 'B', it is clear that the deceased nurtured strong suspicion or in fact believed that the appellant had illicit relations with his wife Devkibai (P.W.5) and that this was the cause why he was led to take the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming poisonous substance. 10. The question to be considered in the context of above facts and circumstances is as to whether the accused/appellant can be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Gopal Das ? 11. Abetment has been defined in section 107 of the I.P.C. as below - 107. 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. 12. Therefore to constitute abetment there should be either instigation by the appellant to the deceased to do a thing which led to the latter's death; or there must be active participation of the appellant into conspiracy or he should have intentionally aided doing of such a thing by the deceased. 13. 12. Therefore to constitute abetment there should be either instigation by the appellant to the deceased to do a thing which led to the latter's death; or there must be active participation of the appellant into conspiracy or he should have intentionally aided doing of such a thing by the deceased. 13. In the instant case there is no evidence that the accused/appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no evidence that the accused/appellant in any manner conspired with the deceased for the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is also no evidence that the accused/appellant intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission, the commission of suicide by the deceased. 14. It appears that the deceased found the appellant, in his house, with the wife Devkibai (P.W.5) and the house was closed from inside and thus came to believe that his wife was being unfaithful to him and was carrying on illicit affair with the appellant. The deceased must naturally have felt deeply hurt by the above conduct of his wife and the accused/appellant, It also appears from the notes marked as Article 'A' and 'B' left by the deceased that in a state of distress and shock, on account of the above conduct of the appellant and his wife, he chose to take the extreme step of ending his life. 15. But the question still to be considered is whether the conduct as above of accused/appellant would amount to intentional aid to the deceased to commit suicide ? The question has to be answered in the negative, as the accused/appellant had not in any manner intentionally aided or assisted the deceased to commit suicide. 16. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted in the above context that the above act of commission of suicide may have been due to the suspicion of the deceased about the illicit relation between his wife and the appellant. But it cannot be said that the accused/appellant instigated or aided or conspired to the commission of suicide by the deceased. He has in this connection referred to the case of State of M.P. Vs. Rupsingh ( 1992 MPLJ 196 ). In that case the appellant has trespassed into the house of deceased and beat the latter. The deceased thereafter committed suicide by lying on the railway track. He has in this connection referred to the case of State of M.P. Vs. Rupsingh ( 1992 MPLJ 196 ). In that case the appellant has trespassed into the house of deceased and beat the latter. The deceased thereafter committed suicide by lying on the railway track. It was held that ordinarily it may be difficult to hold a person guilty of abetting the commission of suicide by another just because the person committing suicide was beaten by him and chose to commit suicide in the wake of beating. It was held in that case that the act of appellant of committing house trespass and beating of appellant would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. 17. Similarly in case of Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of M.P. (1994 J LJ 758) the deceased had committed suicide on account of appellant having asked him to repay loan amount taken by deceased and on deceased expressing his inability to pay, the appellant had filthily abused and threatened the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased narrated the incident to his wife and later committed suicide. A suicide note was also left by the deceased in that case putting the blame of his committing suicide on the accused/persons. It was held in that case that the accused/persons merely goaded him to repay the amount advanced by them and they never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. It was held in the circumstances that the offence of abetment to commit suicide was not made out. Learned counsel for appellant has also relied upon Utkal Vs. State of M.P. (1997 (2) MPLJ 32) in support of his contention as above. 18. From the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as also from the suicide note left by the deceased it is abundantly clear that the deceased could not bear the shame, humiliation and agony of his wife having illicit relations with the appellant and therefore took the extreme step of -(sic)ing an end to his life. Therefore, even though the conduct of the accused/appellant appears to be the cause for the deceased to commit suicide; but since the appellant did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide nor aided or assisted the deceased to do so; the offence of abetment to the deceased to commit suicide cannot be said to have been made out. 19. Therefore, even though the conduct of the accused/appellant appears to be the cause for the deceased to commit suicide; but since the appellant did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide nor aided or assisted the deceased to do so; the offence of abetment to the deceased to commit suicide cannot be said to have been made out. 19. Accordingly, though the conduct of accused/appellant may be morally reprehensible or socially condemnable, but since it did not amount to abetment to commit suicide; hence his conviction under section 306 of the I.P.C. cannot be upheld. 20. The appeal, therefore is allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused/appellant under section 306 of I.P.C. is set aside. He is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal allowed