JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 10.9.2004 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2004 whereby the Trial Court framed the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the record of the Trial Court. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 4.9.2003, Smt. Sannu Bai, wife of deceased Puranmal lodged a first information report at Police Station, Chhoti Sadri alleging therein that at 9.00 A.M., her husband was not at home; petitioners came to her and asked as to where her husband has gone, she told them that he must be in village; thereafter they went back. After some time when her husband came, she informed him that certain persons of the village came and were enquiring about him. Her husband informed her that two days prior while he was going to fetch water on a cycle, the jerrycan, which was hanging on the cycle, dashed to Rekha daughter of Babulal. By the time, those persons again came and sat outside her house, she also sat outside the house, however, her husband remained inside the house. At about 1.00 RM., those persons went away. She alongwith her sister - in-law was sitting outside the house. However, she heard sound of vomiting of her husband, they went inside the house and asked him as to what happened to him, he did not reply, however, on being searched, some sulfas tablets were found in the pocket of his pant. Thereafter, neighbour Sundar Lal was called on; her husband was taken to hospital at Chhoti Sadri. On reaching hospital, they came to know that her husband has died. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence that the petitioners abetted the deceased to commit suicide, on the contrary, the prosecution case as set up by the complainant is taken in its entirety on its face value, then also no offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence that the petitioners abetted the deceased to commit suicide, on the contrary, the prosecution case as set up by the complainant is taken in its entirety on its face value, then also no offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P & Anr., 1999 CrLR (SC) 141 , wherein the Apex Court has held that it is difficult in the facts and circumstances to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between the quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in ail events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant in that case. The appellant therein has remarked for the deceased to go and die. It is alleged that the deceased therein went home in a dejected mood and whereafter, he committed suicide. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the charges. 5. In Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCC 1064 , the deceased therein had complained to Advocates of Dungarpur that he was apprehending his arrest on the complaint filed by Rooplal and as he would not be able to defend himself, there was no alternative but to commit suicide. In that case, after the complaint was filed against the deceased, he was in tension. In the suicide note, deceased did not say that he was committing suicide because some active roll of the petitioners therein. What is written in the suicide note is that Takhat Singh, Gopal Singh, Shri Rameshwarlal, Roopa Bhai Banjara and Rooplal did not like him and many persons were involved in proving the case against him. In the suicide note, deceased did not say that he was committing suicide because some active roll of the petitioners therein. What is written in the suicide note is that Takhat Singh, Gopal Singh, Shri Rameshwarlal, Roopa Bhai Banjara and Rooplal did not like him and many persons were involved in proving the case against him. This Court held that the facts stated in the suicide note did not construe the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC and quashed the proceedings. In order to construe the offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be some evidence that the deceased person was instigated to commit suicide. The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC are that any person commits suicide on being abetted by some person to commit suicide. Chapter V of Indian Penal Code provides the abetment. In order to construe the abetment, it must be shown that the abettor intentionally aided the commission of the crime. 6. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide, on the contrary, a bare perusal of the case as set up by the complainant shows that when the deceased, complainant's husband came to home he was informed by the complainant that few persons of the village came and, therefore, he went inside the house. He had not made conversation even with the complainant and after the deceased went inside the house, those persons sat outside the house and went away. The occurrence is of the period between around 9 A.M. and 1.00 P.M. Wife of deceased heard sound of vomiting and when she went inside the house, found her husband vomiting and on a search being made, some sulfas tablets were found in the pocket of pant of her husband. The committal of the suicide by the deceased has absolutely no nexus with the persons, who came to his house and thereafter they went away because those persons never informed to the deceased for what purpose they came to deceased's house. Even deceased's wife never informed her husband, when he came from outside, that for what purpose the villagers came. More so, when the deceased came to his house from outside, he was already in possession of sulfas tablets and had consumed the tablets within the duration of about 4 hours i.e. between 9.00 A.M. to 1.00 RM. Even deceased's wife never informed her husband, when he came from outside, that for what purpose the villagers came. More so, when the deceased came to his house from outside, he was already in possession of sulfas tablets and had consumed the tablets within the duration of about 4 hours i.e. between 9.00 A.M. to 1.00 RM. Even there is nothing on record to show who abetted him to commit suicide. To construe the offence under Section 306 IPC, the essential ingredients are that any person committed suicide; that such a commission of suicide by the consequence of an abetment and; that abetment was made by the accused. In the instant case, the very essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are missing. At any rate, the case as set up by the prosecution does not make out prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC and, therefore, the order framing charge deserves to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Order impugned framing charge dated 10.9.2004 is hereby set aside. Petitioners are discharged of offence under Section 306 IPC. The stay petition stands disposed of.Revision Petition allowed. *******