ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. 1. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter be heard and disposed of finally at this stage. 2. Heard. ]3. The two petitioners are brothers-in-law (SALAS) of third accused Tejilal. They have been charge-sheeted for offence under Section 306 I.P.C., on allegation that Tejilal's brother Basantlal committed suicide in his own house by hanging himself on the night between 11th and 12th of October, 1998 at about 3 a.m.. The circumstances leading to this suicide were that the accused Tejilal and deceased Basantlal being real brothers had jointly built a house in Netanagar, Adhartal. Deceased, thereafter, wanted a partition to which Tejilal was not agreed and resisted it violently. As Basantlal insisted for separation of his share, Tejilal used to threaten him and had assaulted him once or more time previously. This situation was continuing for about three years, during which Tejilal's wife, two brothers namely; Ram Sewak and Rammulal (the present petitioners) also joined hands with Tejilal in threatening Basantlal. They even asked him to vacate the house and threatened him about it. The exact nature of threats given are not disclosed in evidence, but, we will assume that were to do something resulting in dire consequences. On 10-10-1998 he had rushed to the house under the apprehension that some GUNDAS have been put after him by Tejilal and his brothers-in-law to do physical assault and harm to him. He rushed to house and told his wife about his apprehension. He told that he suspected that Tejilal and his two SALAS have sent some GUNDAS after him so he left his house and spent the night at a friend's house. He had gone to the house of Goli Kumhar for self protection. Next day he came to his house which was a joint house and during the night of 11th and 12th October at about 3 a.m., he hanged himself with the rope to the roof. As the chair fell, his wife woke up and noticed him hanging, but, he had died by that time. Keeping in view these circumstances, the trial Court i.e., 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against all the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that assuming these facts as true they do not attract the provisions of Section 107 I.P.C. which defines abetment as under : "107. Keeping in view these circumstances, the trial Court i.e., 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against all the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that assuming these facts as true they do not attract the provisions of Section 107 I.P.C. which defines abetment as under : "107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets in doing of a thing, who-- Firstly :-- 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, in doing of that thing." 5. It is assumed that abetment of suicide in case of a married woman is on a different footing as the same has suffered a presumption under the provisions of Section 113 A Evidence Act inserted in the Evidence Act which reads as under :-- "113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman :-- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." 6. It is argued that this presumption cannot be applied to cases of other suicide than married woman and that presumption is also attracted only against husband and his relatives and not against the others. 7. Learned counsel supports his argument by precedents of this Court in cases reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. page 893, titled Vedprakash v. State, and 1998 (2) M.P.W.N. Note No. 84, titled Dinesh Chandra v. State of M.P., In both these cases, single bench of this Court observed that in case of suicide by male person, which are occasioned due to threat of various persons enmical to them, did not attract the provision of abetment against those giving threat, if the victim commits suicide. The precedent apart, Section 107 I.P.C. which defines abetment requires any of the following actions, or omissions by the abettor; (a) Instigation to commit suicide by the victim; (b) Conspiracy with others for commission of suicide by the victim if some illegal act or omission has taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy. So, there should be conspiracy between the accused and the victim that he may commit suicide; (c) Intentionally aiding by act or illegal omission. 8. None of these conditions can be inferred from the circumstances brought on record by the evidence. This Court will assume that the circumstances above narrated existed. But, the question is whether from these circumstances an inference of instigation or conspiracy or aiding can be raised or can it be said that the suicide has been facilitated by their threats. 9. Threat of the present case may have so frightened the deceased that he took a decision to end his life as an escape route. But, can we say that there was the only available escape for him. Suicide is an action of a weak mind. He could have faced upto the threat, he could have gone to the police. He was in his house when he committed suicide. So, it is not inferable from these circumstances that these accused had abetted the suicide in the sense or within the meaning of that term under Section 107 I.P.C.. 10. Suicide by married woman has been put on a different footing by introduction of Section 113A Evidence Act. The Courts cannot introduce that presumption to other circumstances, of course ordinarily inference as may be permissible due to common course events which may be observable in the society, may be drawn by the Court under Section 114 Evidence Act as common course of events. But, to infer abetment of suicide by a person who was threatened by other or by another will be too far-fetched and cannot be covered even by provisions of Section 114 Evidence Act which deal with natural course of event of human conduct of public and private business, in their relation to the facts of a particular case. Merely because a particular acts committed by accused are occasion for suicide by a victim of those offences cannot lead to draw presumption of abetment by application of Section 114 Evidence Act. Merely because a particular acts committed by accused are occasion for suicide by a victim of those offences cannot lead to draw presumption of abetment by application of Section 114 Evidence Act. Creating circumstances which become occasion for an act is not the same thing as abetting the act. 11. The evidence of Parwati the wife and certain neighbours or acquaintance of the deceased has been brought to the notice of this Court and there is nothing more to the evidence than the facts noticed at the beginning of this order. 12. After perusing the entire material on record, this Court finds that if the entire material is taken as proved facts, it does not warrant conviction for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.. In these peculiar circumstances this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction should interfere. The facts established do not make out a charge. So this revision petition is accepted. The charges framed are set aside in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even the charge framed against Tejilal is also set aside although he is not the petitioner, as the trial has become infructuous in view of the above discussion. Petition is accordingly accepted, the prosecution is quashed.