Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Lallu alias Sharad Kumar has been convicted under Section 306, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 500/ -. He has also been convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and after scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC is not sustainable. Conviction of the appellant under Section 306, IPC is based mainly on the suicide-note Ex. P-6 which is said to have been recovered from the pocket of deceased Shyamlal after a few days of the commission of the suicide by him. This suicide note was seized by the police as per seizure memo Ex. P-12 on 3-3-1994. According to this suicide note accused Lallu kicked Shyamlal on his testicles and therefore on account of pain and humiliation Shyamlal committed suicide. The incident of kicking is said to have taken place 15 days before the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. No report of that incident was lodged nor Shyamlal was medically examined. From the suicide note it is difficult to hold that accused Lallu abetted the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. The accused cannot be said to have instigated or aided the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. The act of kicking of the deceased by the accused 15 days ago could not ordinarily drive the deceased to commit suicide. Even if it is assumed that the deceased felt humiliated and insulted by the act of the accused, it was not enough for him to bring an end to his life. He could have reported the matter to the police and the accused could have been punished for causing hurt to the deceased. It appears that the deceased was hyper-sensitive person and for that reason he brought an end to his life. The accused cannot be held liable for instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the accused. ( 3. ) RECENTLY the Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of M. P. , 2002 AIR SCW 2035, has held that the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The accused cannot be held liable for instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the accused. ( 3. ) RECENTLY the Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of M. P. , 2002 AIR SCW 2035, has held that the word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mem rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. In this case some earlier decisions of the Supreme Court have been cited. One of them is Mahendra Singh v. State of M. P. , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, in which also it has been held that conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306, IPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. So was the decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 = AIR 2001 SC 3837 . ( 4. ) IN view of the above legal position the conviction of the appellant under Section 306, IPC in the present case must be set aside. So far as the conviction under Section 323, IPC is concerned, that is unassailable. Accused Lallu voluntarily caused injury on the testicles of Shyamlal. That is established from the suicide note and also from the evidence of Premlal (P. W. 7), Leela Bai (P. W. 8) and Ravi Kumar (P. W. 11 ). Therefore, conviction of appellant under Section 323, IPC is maintained. He has remained in jail for about four months. Therefore, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for this offence imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already spent by him in jail. ( 5. ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306, IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of this charge. His conviction under Section 323, IPC is maintained and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced as mentioned above.