JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Shimla dated March 17, 2004. 2. Respondents Varinder Singh and Partap Singh, son and father were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code "Code" for short. 3. Prosecution case, it appears, was: 4. Ms. Kavita (deceased) was having an affair with respondent No. l Varinder Singh. Both of them have been going together for about one and half years. Varinder Singh promised to marry Kavita. However, he married another girl. The deceased, due to shock, committed suicide on December 1, 2001. She left a suicide note, which shows that the deceased committed suicide, as Varinder Singh did not marry her. 5. It may be noticed at this stage that even though both Varinder Singh and his father were prosecuted and acquitted for the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code but the State has appealed only against the acquittal of Varinder Singh and not against his father Partap Singh. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused, took note of the fact that it was after two months of the suicide by the deceased that statement of complainant and mother of the deceased was recorded by the Police and at that time, she lay no blame either on Varinder Singh or his father. It was after four months of the death of her daughter that she complained that her daughter committed suicide for which Varinder Singh and his father were responsible. Though complainant Kaushalaya Devi (PW1), mother of the deceased, in her testimony stated that accused Varinder was frequent visitor to their house and had expressed his desire to marry her daughter, her daughter too was keen to marry accused Varinder. However, Varinder, after some time, went incommunicado and contracted marriage with another girl but the father of the deceased Roop Ram (PW3) confined his testimony to say that accused had intimate relations with his daughter and they wanted to marry each other. As the accused married some other girl, therefore, his daughter committed suicide. 7. However, Varinder, after some time, went incommunicado and contracted marriage with another girl but the father of the deceased Roop Ram (PW3) confined his testimony to say that accused had intimate relations with his daughter and they wanted to marry each other. As the accused married some other girl, therefore, his daughter committed suicide. 7. The question, which arises for consideration is whether a boy who breaks his promise to marry a girl and girl in frustration commits suicide, can be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code, i.e. abetment of suicide. The answer indeed is No. Section 306 of the Code reads: "306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 8. So far the question of abetment is concerned, we have to look to Section 107 of the Code, which defines abetment. Section 107 reads: "107. Abetment of a thing—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. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing." 9. Admittedly, the present case does not fall within clause First or Second. So far clause third is concerned, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of crime or illegally omitted to "do a thing", which resulted in the commission of the crime alleged. 10. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner aided or facilitated the suicide committed by the deceased nor is there any evidence to this effect. 11. 10. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner aided or facilitated the suicide committed by the deceased nor is there any evidence to this effect. 11. So far the question of "illegal omission" is concerned, we hardly need to emphasize that "to prove abetment", it is necessary to show that accused intentionally aided the offence by his non-interference. The omission, we may emphasize involves a breach of legal obligation. In the present case, by no stretch, it can be said that the accused breached any "legal obligation" by not marrying the deceased even if he had promised to marry the deceased at one point of time. 12. What at best can be said is that deceased was shocked and emotionally disturbed when accused Varinder Singh married another girl. It was under this emotional shock and frustration that deceased committed suicide. Such an act on the part of the deceased does not lead to the conclusion that accused Varinder Singh abetted the suicide. To constitute abetment, their must exists "mens rea” or what is popularly called as "community of intention". No such intention is attributable to the accused. It cannot be said that the respondent intended the committal of suicide by the deceased. Merely because a love lorn girl fails in her attempt to marry her lover and commit suicide, will not make the lover abettor to the suicide. 13. In the present case, as we have noticed earlier, there was no legal obligation on the part of respondent Varinder Singh to marry deceased and therefore, his act in marrying another girl will not amount to "illegal omission" or "intentional aid" as contemplated under clause 3 of Section 107 of the Code. We do not find any merit in this petition. Leave refused. Leave refused. Dismissed.