JUDGMENT 1. - Though having different facts, these two revision petitions are founded on similar preposition of law, hence are disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed are : Revision No.1164/2007 - (Bhakar Ram & Ors. v. State) On 10.7.2007 one Shri Om Prakash submitted a report at Police Station Peepar, stating therein that about 14 years back his sister Surji Devi got married with Shri Bhakar Ram. Though adequate dowry was given to her at the time of marriage but her husband and other members of in-laws family subjected her to torture and harassment for dowry and ultimately on 9.7.2007 they have killed her and thrown in a well. After registering a case contemplating offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC, investigation was conducted and a charge sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC was filed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur by order dated 27.9.2007 framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the petitioners. Revision No.763/2007 - (Suraj Karan & Ors. v. State & Anr.) 3. A complaint was submitted by respondent Shri Manoj Kumar before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Osian alleging commission of suicide by his father Shri Om Prakash as a consequent to abetment induced by the present petitioners. As per the facts averred in the complaint, Late Shri Om Prakash was having possession over a shop owned by Maheshwari Samaj and the petitioners were harassing him to vacate the premises. Despite an interim order the petitioners successfully get the premises vacated and, thus, being suffered by harassment Shri Om Prakash committed suicide. The complaint was sent to the Police Station Mathania for investigation as per the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, after investigation a negative final report was submitted. On protest petition the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners. 4. To challenge framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in the case of Bhakar Ram & Ors. On protest petition the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners. 4. To challenge framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in the case of Bhakar Ram & Ors. and taking of cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in the case of Suraj Karan & Ors., the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that no evidence is available on record to prima facie establish that death of either Surji Devi or Om Prakash occurred due to suicide on abetment by the petitioners in the cases concerned. 5. On the other hand, it is urged by learned Public Prosecutor that it was torture, harassment and insensitivity towards Smt. Surji Devi that forced her to take extreme step of committing suicide. 6. In the case of Bhakar Ram & Ors. also it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that adequate evidence is available on record to prove harassment advanced by the present petitioners that ultimately instigated Shri Om Prakash to commit suicide. 7. In both the cases the evidence available require examination from the angle as to whether any cruelty/harassment met by the victim had in fact induced them to end the life by committing suicide. For examining record with such a view, what the term "abetment" mean is to be understood. As per Section 107 IPC the abetment is "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." 8. In the case of Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 Cr. L.R. (WC) 502 : 2007(2) CJ (SC) Cr. 591 , Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the offence of abetment as follows:- "6.Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. In the case of Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 Cr. L.R. (WC) 502 : 2007(2) CJ (SC) Cr. 591 , Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the offence of abetment as follows:- "6.Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1)he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107." 9. This Court, therefore, require to see role of the accused persons in instigation to commit suicide, conspiracy to commit suicide or adding the commission of suicide. If there is any active participation, encouragement, provocation for commission of suicide, then the person responsible deserves to be booked for abetment, however, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal (supra) the mere fact of cruelty is not enough to make out a case for incitement to commission of suicide. 10. In the case of Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 3107 , while dealing with the same issue Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere harassment would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. 11. In the cases in hand, role of the accused persons deserves examination in light of the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above. 12. In the case of Bhakar Ram & Ors. the facts emerges out are that despite 14 years of marriage and having two children, Smt. Surji Devi and her husband were not keeping good relations. As per the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie it appears that deceased Surji Devi was subjected to torture and harassment for dowry. 12. In the case of Bhakar Ram & Ors. the facts emerges out are that despite 14 years of marriage and having two children, Smt. Surji Devi and her husband were not keeping good relations. As per the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie it appears that deceased Surji Devi was subjected to torture and harassment for dowry. She was not residing with her husband from last about a year and she went to her in-laws house about two months back only to serve her husband as he met with an accident. 13. In the statements, Jawari Lal, a cousin brother of deceased Surji Devi, stated as follows:- " fnukad 8-7-2007 dks lka;dky 5 cts eSa cl esa cSaBdj tks/kiqj ds Mkafx;kokl tk jgk FkkA mlh cl esa lqjth viuh lkl >edqnsoh ds lkFk xkWao cSu.k tk jgh FkhA jkLrs esa ckrksa&ckrksa esa lqjth us eq>s crk;k fd eq>s tks/kiqj esa ifr o lkl }kjk ekjk&ihVk x;k FkkA bu yksxksa us esjk thuk gjke dj j[kk gSa] eSa vkt ds ckn rqe yksxksa ls ugha fey ikmaxh o bruk dgdj og :vkalh gks x;hA " 14. An another witness Bhakar Ram son of Shri Teja Ram also stated as follows:- " vkt ls nks efgus igys gekjs taokbZ Hkk[kjjke dk ,DlhMsaV gksus ij mudh lsok&pkdjh djus gsrq eSa lwjth dks ysdj mldh llqjky mldks NksM+us x;k Fkk rc mlus vius ekrk&firk dks crk;k fd esjs llqjky okys eq>s ijs'kku djsaxs o tkus ugha nsaxsA jkLrs esa mlus eq>s crk;k fd eSa thuk ugha pkgrh gwa o llqjky okyksa ds vR;kpkj ls eq>s ejuk iM+sxkA "" b izdkj lqjth ds ifr Hkk[kjjke] nsoj Hkaojyky] uun deyhnsoh o lklq >edwnsoh }kjk ngst dh ekax dks ysdj rax o ijs'kku djus ls lqjth }kjk mudh izrkM+uk ls rax vkdj fnukad 9-7-2007 dks lqcg 9 cts vius ?kj ds ikl fLFkr ,d dq,Wa esa dwn dj viuh bZgyhy lekIr dj nhA lqjth vius llqjky tuksa }kjk nh x;h ;kpukvksa ls rax vk pqdh FkhA " 15. From the statements of Bhakar Ram it appears that deceased was apprehending acute torture even to the extent of death by her in-laws. As per Jawari Lal also deceased Surji was perturbed because of beating given to her and was also apprehending death. From the statements of Bhakar Ram it appears that deceased was apprehending acute torture even to the extent of death by her in-laws. As per Jawari Lal also deceased Surji was perturbed because of beating given to her and was also apprehending death. It is also pertinent to note that deceased was staying with her maternal family and only after going to her inlaws house for two months, she committed suicide. The incitement by active participation or otherwise in such cases quite often is to be proved by circumstances. The facts of the case prima facie satisfy that something more than harassment was there and that is sufficient at this stage to frame charge for commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 16. So far as the case of Suraj Karan & Ors. is concerned, whatever evidence is available, if accepted as it is, even then there is nothing on basis of that it may be presumed that any instigation or incitement was made by the petitioners that resulted into commission of suicide by Late Shri Om Prakash. There may be evidence relating to pressure brought upon Om Prakash to vacate the shop but that itself is not sufficient to try the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC. The police report also, after complete investigation, reached at the same conclusion. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence only on the count that deceased Om Prakash was said to be harassed by the present petitioners. By accepting whatever evidence available on record, no offence as per Section 306 IPC could have been made out against the present petitioners. There is no evidence on record relating to instigation to commit suicide, conspiracy to commit suicide or adding the commission of suicide. No active participation, encouragement or provocation for committing suicide appears to be there on the part of the petitioners. Thus, the order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners is bad. 17. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, revision petition No.1164/2007, Bhakar Ram & Ors. v. State , is dismissed and the revision petition No.763/2007, Suraj Karan & Ors. v. State & Anr. , is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.7.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Osian (Jodhpur) is quashed.Revision No. 1164/2007 dismissed, Revision No. 763/2007 allowed. *******