JUDGMENT 1. . - This is a revision against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali dated 8.4.92 by which he framed charge under Section 306, IPC against the petitioners. 2. 1 have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. 3. Briefly stated a report was lodged on 24.10.1991 at 6.00 p.m. by petitioner No. I Hari Singh petitioner that his real brother Mangal Singh fell in well. He died due to grievous injuries. An inquiry was conducted under Section 174, Cr.P.C. and a case under Section 306, IPC was registered. After usual investigation challan was submitted against Hari Singh and Bhanwar Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Hari Singh and Mangal Singh deceased had a joint well. Construction work was going on. It was decided between the two brothers that the expenses incurred will be shared by both of them. Mangal Singh was a poor man and not in a position to pay his share. A quarrel took place between Hari Singh and Mangal Singh wherein it is alleged that Hari Singh said that in case he was not able to pay expenses he should go and fall in a well. Thereupon Mangal Singh committed suicide by falling himself in a well. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of this evidence framed charge under Section 306, IPC against the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not aid or abet the offence ana, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioners is totally groundless. He cited 1985 (10) RCC 257, Gautam Ra,; Mehta v. The State of Rajasthan , in which following words were used : 'xxx xxx xxx" 5. He also cited 1978 WLN (UC) 453, Mst. feet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan , in which Sahab Kaur was retorted and was said that if she was true daughter of her father she might commit suicide by burning herself. This led to the committal of suicide by Sahab Kaur. He also cited 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 620, Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan . He also cited 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 249=II (1994) CCR 1356, Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , in which the deceased committed suicide when she was retorted following words : "xxx xxx xxx" 6. This led to the committal of suicide by Sahab Kaur. He also cited 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 620, Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan . He also cited 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 249=II (1994) CCR 1356, Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , in which the deceased committed suicide when she was retorted following words : "xxx xxx xxx" 6. In these citations it was held that on the fa :s offence under Section 306, IPC was not made out. 7. In a case decided by me reported in Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it has been held that word abetment as used in Section 107, IPC means that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in ai Ly 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. There is nothing on record in this case that the petitioners intended or wanted the deceased to commit suicide and thus in any way abeted it. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 141, Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr., has held that when the deceased committed suicide and the remarks used were to go and die which were casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of moment, it cannot be said that the suicide was the direct result of words uttered, is not acceptable. It was held that in such cases there should be reflection of mens-rea. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 152, Chanchal Kumari & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh , it has been held that there should be intention to abet suicide. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had such a mens-rea or intention that the deceased should commit suicide. Consequently, they should not have been charged with offence under Section 306, IPC. I am conscious that even strong suspicion can be the basis to frame charge. In this case, no such circumstance is found. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioners is set aside. Consequently, they should not have been charged with offence under Section 306, IPC. I am conscious that even strong suspicion can be the basis to frame charge. In this case, no such circumstance is found. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioners is set aside. They are discharged from the offence under Section 306, IPC.Revision Petition dismissed. *******