( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned III Additional sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The sole petitioner, who was convicted in S. C. No. 268 of 2004 by the learned Assistant Sessions judge Karimnagar, for the offence under section 306 IPC, was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000-00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, preferred Crl. A. No. 70 of 2004, which was dismissed by the learned appellate Judge confirming the conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case are as follows: On 31-5-2003, at Irukulla village, at about 11. 00 p. m. , when the deceased, Sathaiah was watching TV at his house, in the company of his father etc. , the accused, who was a neighbour, went to their house and requested them to allow her to make a phone call. The deceased informed that their phone is not working, on that she went away. Some time thereafter, the deceased, went out for attending calls of nature. After he returned, the accused came there and started abusing the deceased alleging that he went to her house and attempted to snatch her gold mangala Sutramu from her neck. She abused the deceased in most filthy language. Next morning, when P. W. 1, father of the deceased and husband of the accused intended to refer the matter to the Village Sarpanch, the accused came and again abused the deceased. The deceased then felt humiliated on account of the false accusation made by the accused, poured kerosene on himself and set afire. He was shifted to Government hospital, where he died after sixteen days. ( 3 ) THE accused denied the offence. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-18 were marked. On behalf of the accused Exs. D-1 and D-2 portions of statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2 recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. were marked. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the material on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner/ accused, which was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, as already referred. On behalf of the accused Exs. D-1 and D-2 portions of statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2 recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. were marked. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the material on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner/ accused, which was confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, as already referred. ( 6 ) NOW the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is that a false case is foisted against the accused and that no offence under section 306 IPC is constituted, even assuming that any such incident has taken place and the deceased has committed suicide. ( 7 ) ON the other hand the learned Public prosecutor contended that the evidence of the prosecution, which is appreciated by both the Courts below, clearly reveals that the incident has taken place and the acts of the petitioner-accused in making false accusation of theft and then abusing him in intolerable language, which ultimately resulted in committing suicide by the deceased, would definitely constitute the offence under section 306 IPC. ( 8 ) NOW, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision. ( 9 ) AS far as facts are concerned i. e. of the deceased committing suicide on account of the accused abusing him on the pretext of him committing theft or attempting to commit theft there appears to be no dispute. The evidence of P. W. 1, father of the deceased, is that the previous night of the incident of the deceased pouring kerosene and setting fire to himself at about 1200 mid-night, the accused came to their house and requested them to allow her to make a phone call. As their phone was not working, they informed the same and the accused went away. At that time, himself and the deceased were watching t. V. Fifteen minutes thereafter, the deceased went out to attend calls of nature. Even after five minutes, as he did not return home, p. W. 1 got up and went out of the house. At that time, the accused appeared before their house scolding his son alleging that he went to their house and snatched away her gold mangala Sutram Chain. Even after five minutes, as he did not return home, p. W. 1 got up and went out of the house. At that time, the accused appeared before their house scolding his son alleging that he went to their house and snatched away her gold mangala Sutram Chain. He looked into her neck and found the chain on her body only, he pointed out the same and questioned as to why she was unnecessarily scolding the deceased. The accused abused the deceased in most filthy language and many people gathered there. In order to avoid nuisance, he took his deceased-son inside the house. The accused was scolding till early morning. At 6. 00 a. m. , he along with his neighbours went to the house of Sarpanch. The husband of the accused who was working in RTC, also came to the house of the Sarpanch. During that period, the accused again went to the house of P. W. 1 and abused the deceased. He learnt that the accused took her urine in a small tin and gave it to the deceased to drink. The deceased having felt insulted and humiliated, poured kerosene and set fire to himself. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, the wife and another son of P. W. 1 also supports this version. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4, Sarpanch of the village is that on that day, the accused and her husband came to his house along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 and informed him that, previous night the deceased came to their house and tried to snatch away her gold chain. P. Ws. 1 and 2 informed that their son did not do any such thing. At that time, a boy came there and informed that the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to himself. P. W. 5, who is a neighbour turned hostile. There is supporting evidence like inquest report and scene of offence panchanama and there is the dying declaration of the deceased also recorded by P. W. 7,the learned judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar at the relevant time. Ex. P-7 is the dying declaration. Thus, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and other circumstantial evidence about the actual incident shows that the incident has taken place. Ex. P-7 is the dying declaration. Thus, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and other circumstantial evidence about the actual incident shows that the incident has taken place. ( 11 ) THUS, the fact that the accused abused the deceased and on account of that the deceased poured kerosene on himself and set at fire cannot be disputed. Though there is substantial delay of seventeen days in giving the complaint, Ex. P-1 to the police, I am not inclined to disbelieve the incident. It is not known as to why there was such a delay in registering the case, whetherthere was no intimation from the Hospital when the deceased was admitted and why the case is registered only after his death. ( 12 ) AS per Ex. P-1 on the fateful day, at about 11. 00 p. m. the accused went to the house of P. W. 1 and requested for using the telephone. She was informed that the telephone was not working and on that she went away. Thereafter at about 1200 midnight, the deceased went out for urinating, came inside the home and slept. At about 2. 00 a. m. the accused came to their house and used abusive language against the deceased saying that he attempted to steal her gold chain of Mangala Sutramu. Next morning also she scolded him. As she scolded and unnecessarily blamed him, on account of intolerable insult, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on his person and setting fire. In Ex. P-1, there is no allegation of the accused giving any urine to the deceased and forcing him to drink. Thus, what all happened is that the deceased was scolded by the accused. ( 13 ) AS per Ex. P-7, the dying declaration when the accused came with a request to use telephone, he informed her that the phone is not working. Then she started scolding him. She attributed theft and sexual avances to him. His parents proposed a panchayat. Her husband threatened that he would give a police complaint as he committed theft. His parents wenttosarpanch for convening a Panchayat. He felt that their prestige would be lost. The false allegation made by the accused and the threat that a police case would be filed, caused fear and he felt that death is only the solution. As such he set fire to himself. His parents wenttosarpanch for convening a Panchayat. He felt that their prestige would be lost. The false allegation made by the accused and the threat that a police case would be filed, caused fear and he felt that death is only the solution. As such he set fire to himself. The accused is responsible for the same. On account of fear of threats and on account of making false allegations, he committed suicide. ( 14 ) AS already referred, there appears to be no dispute about the incident of the accused coming to the house of the deceased, in the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased, requesting them to allow her to make a phone call, on being informed about the telephone being out of order; going away thereafter the deceased going out on the pretext of urinating and coming home and thereafter the accused coming and abusing the deceased. ( 15 ) WHAT exactly had happened, when the deceased went out, as to whether he committed any theft or attempted to commit any theft of any gold chain from the neck of the accused, is not very clear. As seen from the dying declaration of the deceased, it may be a case, where the deceased on knowing that the accused was alone at her house, made some advances towards her. ( 16 ) MAY be on account of attempted theft of on account of the deceased making some advances towards the accused, the accused scolded/abused the deceased. It cannot be believed that without there being any incident, the accused abused the deceased. Even according to P. W. 1 father of the deceased, the accused went out for urinating and did not return for abnormally long time. That means obviously something has taken place. If nothing has happened, there was no reason for the accused to abuse the deceased. It is not the case of P. W. 1 or the deceased, that on account of the accused being not allowed to use the telephone, she got annoyed and scolded the deceased. In such a case, that would have been immediately after the refusal to use the telephone, and that, too, it would have been directed against P. W. 1 also and not against the deceased alone. In such a case, that would have been immediately after the refusal to use the telephone, and that, too, it would have been directed against P. W. 1 also and not against the deceased alone. ( 17 ) WHEN an attempted theft or attempted sexual assault has taken place and when the victim scolds or abuses or threatens the culprit of giving police complaint and on account of such thing, if such culprit commits suicide, whether it would amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC? ( 18 ) CERTAIN decisions have been cited before the learned appellate Judge. But the learned Judge by not properly appreciating these decisions has given a finding against the petitioner-accused. ( 19 ) IN a decision of our High Court in A. Venkat Reddy v. Ukanti Janardhan Reddy, 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 326 (A. P.) = 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 248. (A. P. ). the facts were:"the case of the prosecution is that on 09-7-2001 there was a Panchayat between the father of the deceased and one Ramireddy in connection with a land dispute, during which the petitioners acted as mediators, and seem to have given a decision in favour of Ramireddy, and against the father of the deceased, the de facto complainant. Alleging that petitioners, while acting as the mediators in the Panchayat, threatening that they would make it impossible for the parties to live in the village if they were not to abide by their decision handed over a decision, which caused a great loss to them and so the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide, leaving a four page suicide note the de facto complainant gave a police report and after investigation police laid a chargesheet against the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC. "it was held that no offence under Section 306 ipc is constituted. In that decision a reference is made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in Sanju v. State of M. P. , 2002 AIR SCW 2035 wherein the hon ble Supreme Court held that mens rea is necessary to constitute instigation and it was held by our High Court in Venkat Reddy s case1 thatthreat cannot be said to be instigation and the material on record does not reveal that the accused had any mens rea to abet suicide by the deceased. In the present case also by no stretch of imagination it can be held that. there was mens rea and the abusing would amount to instigation. ( 20 ) IN another decision of our High Court in Neelam @ Bondila Lachaiah v. State of a. P. , 2002 (2) ALR (Crl.) 186 (A. P.) = 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 539 (A. P. ). where the deceased was constantly humiliated stating that the deceased committed theft of Rs. 2,000-00, in a house, at a marriage function on account of which, the deceased committed suicide, after going back to the village on the next day it was held that no offence under Section 306 IPC was constituted. In that particular case, by a method of administering "mantra Biyyam on the deceased, the theft was detected and subsequently he was made naked, still it was held that such humiliation caused by the accused would not amount to instigation that prompted the deceased to commit suicide or that the accused have intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide and that it would be difficult to hold that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In that decision a reference is made to another decision of our High Court in v. Adinarayana v. State of A. P. 2000crl. LJ. 1182=2000 (1)ALT (Crl.)171 (A. P. ). which again relied on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in Shriram v. State U. P. , AIR 1975 SC 175 . wherein itwas observed that:"the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above are quite clear as to the requirements to constitute abetment of suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that even though threatening words were used by the petitioners/accused, those words are not sufficient to be described as instigating in the commission of the offence. I accept the contention. Therefore, I am of the view that no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC read with section 109 IPC. The accused are entitled to be acquitted. They are acquitted. They are accordingly acquitted. "thus, it was held that using of threatening words or causing certain humiliation to certain extent would not constitute abetment to commit suicide. ( 21 ) THE third decision cited before the learned appellate Judge is V. Adinarayana v. State of A. P. , about which a reference has been made supra. They are acquitted. They are accordingly acquitted. "thus, it was held that using of threatening words or causing certain humiliation to certain extent would not constitute abetment to commit suicide. ( 21 ) THE third decision cited before the learned appellate Judge is V. Adinarayana v. State of A. P. , about which a reference has been made supra. In this case, the accused used to threaten the deceased saying that they would reveal the illicit contact to her would be husband and on account of that two women jumped in a canal, out of whom one died and another was rescued; but again she committed suicide by setting fire to herself, and, she gave dying declaration saying that "my mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband s elder brother s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed, I want to die by burning. " In those circumstances also, it was held that no offence under section 306 IPC was constituted. ( 22 ) WHEN, the circumstances referred in the above cases, would not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, it is incomprehensible as to how the circumstances of the case on hand where the accused has abused the deceased for the reason of attempting to commit theft or of attempted sexual assault, on account of which, the deceased committed suicide, would constitute an offence under section 306 IPC. Thus, I hold that no offence under Section 306 is committed by the petitioner-accused and in that view of the matter; the instant revision is liable to be allowed. ( 23 ) IN the result, the revision case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, karimnagar in S. C. No. 268 of 2004, as confirmed by the learned III Additional sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Crl. A. No. 70 of 2004 are set aside. The petitioner-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if she is not required to be detained in any other case. Fine amount, if any paid by her, shall be returned after appeal time is over.