ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 21.9.2005, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 344/06, framing the charge against him under sections 306 and 506 II of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the facts and circumstances as appear from the record, no case for framing the charge under section 306 of IPC is made out, as such, the trial Court has committed error in framing the charge against the applicant. 3. According to prosecution, Rajiv Shastri (deceased) committed suicide on 19.7.2005 by getting crushed by running train. A suicide note was seized near his body, which reads as under: ^^vknj.kh; cM+s HkkbZ lqjsUnz eSa rqEgkjs dk;ksZa ls ijs"kku gksdj =Lr gks x;k gw¡ esjk ifjokj Hkh cgqr ijs"kku gks x;k gS vkius esjh ,d Hkh ugha lquh gS vkSj gesa etcwj gksdj ds vkRegR;k djuk iM+ jgk gS esjh ekSr dk iw.kZ ftEesnkj lqjsUnz vkRet Jh KkupUn tSu ijdksVk lkxj gh gSA** 4. During investigation, police recorded the statements of Lalchand Shastri (Father), Smt. Kasturi Jain (Shastri) (Mother), Purshottam Choubey and Kanchedilal. His father stated that his son Rajiv Shastri worked in partnership with the applicant Surendra Jain. Both of them were doing the job of plantation and plastics. For last two years their scheme failed and they incurred huge loss. Some differences arose between them over settlement of the accounts. Applicant asked some money from Rajiv and pressurized him. On 18.7.2005, he overheard a telephone call on parallel line made by applicant to deceased wherein he had made demand of money from him and intimidated him that he may do anything if money was not paid. Rajiv requested him that all the accounts were with him (Surendra) and he was ready to pay if anything was due from his side. According to witness, he did not know anything about the agreement or terms of partnership between them. However, deceased had informed him that Surendra was not settling accounts. Similar statement was given by the witness Smt. Kasturi Jain. According to her, the mental condition of her son was not stable, often he told her that Surendra had embroiled him. According to her, somebody by name Choubey had also intimidated Rajiv, but Rajiv did not disclose anything to her and committed suicide by coming under the running train on 19.7.2005. According to her, the mental condition of her son was not stable, often he told her that Surendra had embroiled him. According to her, somebody by name Choubey had also intimidated Rajiv, but Rajiv did not disclose anything to her and committed suicide by coming under the running train on 19.7.2005. Smt. Sadhna, the wife of Rajiv (deceased), disclosed that Surendra and deceased were close friends and were doing the business of sale and purchase of land. Her husband had also share in the business, but he never informed her about the dealings. In the night of 18.7.2005, her husband told her that though he had done a lot for Surendra Jain, but he was threatening him to kill or to lift his children. In the past also he had intimidated her husband. Out of fear, she did not let her children go to school for 3-4 days. In the morning of 19.7.2005, she came to know that her husband got cut by the train. So far as the witness Purshottam Choubey is concerned, he disclosed that he himself did not extend any threat to deceased. Witness Kanchedi disclosed that he was in the business of property dealing. He had formed a company by name Girnar Plantation & Farm Development Pvt. Ltd.. This company was formed in the year 1994. He was one of the Directors and applicant Surendra Jain was Managing Director of the Company. Rajiv Shastri (deceased) and Sadhna Jain owned about 450 shares. Due to loss, this company was wound up in the year 2004. They had to bear the loss. Rajiv Shastri had no concern with the loss because he was not a post holder in the company. He stated that deceased was a heavy drunker and was a person of bad character. Due to his illicit relations with some woman, there were domestic problems in his family. Probably, he had committed suicide due to his family problems, but his father tried to clamp the liability over other persons. 5. Taking into consideration the statements of all the aforesaid witnesses, it does not appear that a case of abetment on the part of the applicant is made out. 6. For framing charge under section 306 IPC, it is necessary that there should be material to indicate that accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under: "Section 306. 6. For framing charge under section 306 IPC, it is necessary that there should be material to indicate that accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under: "Section 306. -- 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." Abetment has been defined in sections 107 and 109 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under: "Section 107. -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First. -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. -- Engages with one 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. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of that act." Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of abetment which reads as under: "Section 109. -- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence." 7. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code makes abetment of the commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide. 8. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide. 8. The similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1994 JLJ 758 = 1995 MPLJ 458 ]. Thus, on the basis of evidence and the material collected during the investigation and produced before the Court alongwith charge sheet, there appears nothing to indicate that applicant incited, prompted or pressurised the deceased with the intention that he should commit suicide, as such prima facie no charge u/s. 306 of IPC is made out. The charge framed under section 306 of IPC by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, there is material on record to prima facie show that applicant had intimidated the deceased with dire consequences. There appears no error in framing the charge u/s. 506 II of IPC. 9. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The charge framed by the trial Court u/s. 306 is set aside. Court below shall proceed for the trial of the offence u/s. 506 II according to law keeping in view the provisions of section 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.