ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Sidhi, in Sessions Trial No. 111/2007, framing charge against them under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of the statements of prosecution witnesses, first information report and other material adduced by the prosecution in the case, prima facie, no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, as such, learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in framing the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In short, the prosecution's case is that, Archana (deceased) was married to Sobhanath Sahu in the month of May, 1998. She committed suicide on 16.4.2007 by swallowing some poison at her husband's house. Allegations against the applicants are that, after marriage they subjected the deceased to cruelty for not meeting the demand of dowry. Accused persons used to demand a Marshal jeep in dowry. Since jeep was not given by parents of the deceased accused persons caused 'Marpeet' and subjected her to cruelty. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, even taking the evidence adducted by the prosecution as it is, without adding or subtracting anything, there appears nothing on record that applicants in any manner intended that the deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that applicants did anything to abet her to commit suicide. Counsel submitted that the provisions of section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, are also not applicable in the present case as death of deceased had taken place about 9 years after her marriage. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty for not meeting demand of dowry, therefore, a clear case of "abatement" to commit suicide is made out. He justified the order of framing charges against the accused persons. 6. I have perused the statements of prosecution witnesses viz Satyanarayan Sahu (father of deceased), Jai Kumari (mother of deceased), Savita Devi (sister of deceased), Sitaram and Ramashankar (brothers of deceased), Premvati (wife of brother-Sitaram), Ram Shiromani and Sushil Kumar; recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I have perused the statements of prosecution witnesses viz Satyanarayan Sahu (father of deceased), Jai Kumari (mother of deceased), Savita Devi (sister of deceased), Sitaram and Ramashankar (brothers of deceased), Premvati (wife of brother-Sitaram), Ram Shiromani and Sushil Kumar; recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On perusal of the statement of Satyanarayan and Jai Kumari, it transpires that Archana (deceased) was married to accused Sobhanath in the month of May, 1998. After marriage Archana lived at her in-laws house for 2 to 3 days, thereafter, she returned back to her house. She lived for about one year at her parent's house and after "Gauna" she again went to her husband's house. It is said that during the period when she lived at her in-laws house, accused persons made demand of Marshal jeep and for not meeting the demand, assaulted her. Whenever she went to her parent's house, she complained about aforesaid demand and conduct of the accused persons. Accused Jagdish Prasad (father-in-law) left Archana at her parent's house and expressed that they would not keep her. On 23.1.2002 a community Panchayat was convened, wherein, it was resolved that accused persons will take Archana to their house and will not harass her. Archana had given birth to a daughter and a son. In the month of April, 2007, Archana disclosed that accused persons were still demanding dowry and were subjecting her to cruelty. On 16.4.2007 Archana committed suicide by swallowing some poisonous substance. Similar statements were given by the witnesses Savita Devi, Sitaram, Premvati and Ramashankar. 7. Witnesses Ram Shiromani and Sushil Kumar who happened to be Sarpanch stated that deceased was married to Sobhanath in the month of May, 1998. Father of the deceased informed him that accused persons were not calling Archana to their house. On inquiry, Archana disclosed that for some time her mind was upset, therefore, she had gone to Banaras without informing anybody. When she went back from Banaras to her husband's house, accused persons sent her to her parent's house. Panchayat was' convened and it was agreed that deceased would not leave her husband's house without consent of her family members. He did not say anything about demand of dowry or cruelty. 8. When she went back from Banaras to her husband's house, accused persons sent her to her parent's house. Panchayat was' convened and it was agreed that deceased would not leave her husband's house without consent of her family members. He did not say anything about demand of dowry or cruelty. 8. Taking into consideration all the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of not meeting demand of dowry, as such, primafacie, the facts make out the case for framing charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. So far as framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, necessary ingredients of "abatement" is necessary. "Abatement" has been defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: "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." 9. Before holding a person liable for causing abetment to somebody, there must be evidence on record to indicate that he instigated, compelled, provoked or incited another person to commit particular act. 10. From the facts as disclosed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it does not appear that accused persons instigated, abetted or in any manner compelled or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. 11. In section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act it has been provided that if a married woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband and she commits suicide due to such harassment within seven years from the date of marriage, her husband or such relatives may be presumed to have committed the offence of abetment to commit suicide. 12. In the present case it has come on record that deceased was married in the month of May, 1998 and she committed suicide on 16.4.2007 i.e. much after seven years of her marriage, therefore, aforesaid presumption is not attracted. 12. In the present case it has come on record that deceased was married in the month of May, 1998 and she committed suicide on 16.4.2007 i.e. much after seven years of her marriage, therefore, aforesaid presumption is not attracted. In the present circumstances, ingredients of abetment as provided in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are necessary to be found in the facts of the case to make the accused persons liable for commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Taking into consideration all the above circumstances as appearing from the prosecution evidence, without adding or subtracting anything, no facts constituting abetment to commit suicide are found. Accordingly, charge framed under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, deserves to be set aside. 14. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. Impugned order of framing charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. However, order of framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Trial Court shall now proceed according to the law.