Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 18/12/06 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, betul in S. T. No. 194/06 in which applicants were charge-sheeted under Section 306/34/34 of IPC. ( 2. ) IT is admitted position that deceased was married with applicant No. 3 Sapna on 24. 4. 2004 and both of them lived together for some time. All applicants are closely related with each other. ( 3. ) IN brief the case of the prosecution is that on 21/01/06 deceased Sahablal went to his father-in-laws house Madholal applicant no. 1 for bringing back his wife Sapna. Deceased sahablal wanted to keep Sapna with his parents but Sapna was not prepared to live with them, therefore, she was living with her parents. Deceased used to suspect her character. On 6/01/06 her uncle Hiralal/applicant no. 5 and sister guddi/applicant no. 2 went to the deceaseds house to bring her with them on the pretext that her mother applicant no. 6 Smt shiv Kumari is sick. She came alongwith them to her maternal house. Applicant no. 3 Sapna was living with her parents. On 21/01/06 the deceased went to the house of applicant No. 1 to bring his wife applicant No. 3. He wanted to take Sapna with him but she refused to go with him because deceased used to doubt on her character as well as he wanted to keep her wife with his parents and she was not ready for that. Sahablal who was having a broken glass in his hand has inflicted injury to himself. Immediately he was taken to W. C. Hospital by applicant no. 1 Madholal (father-in-law) where he succumbed to death. On Postmortem it was found that deceased Sahablal was drunk and he died due to injury caused by broken glass inflicted by himself. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against all these applicants under Section 306/34 of the IPC. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 5. ) IN order to implicate a person under Section 306/34 of ipc there should be some material against the said persons that they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The term "abetted of a thing" has been defined in Section 107, IPC which reads thus : "107. ( 5. ) IN order to implicate a person under Section 306/34 of ipc there should be some material against the said persons that they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The term "abetted of a thing" has been defined in Section 107, IPC which reads thus : "107. Abetment of a thing :-A person abets the doing of a thing; or first " Instigates any person to do that things; 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 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. Explanation 2-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of offence of an act, does anything in order to facilitates the common of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. " ( 6. ) IF the provisions of Section 107 IPC is read in juxtaposition of the material available on record, it would reveal that the entire emphasis has been putforth by the prosecution against the present applicants are that deceaseds wife Sapna was not prepared to live with him therefore, deceased has committed the suicide. ( 7. ) BY taking the shelter under the umbrella of following decisions of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on these authorities : 7-I. In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another AIR 1994 SC 1418 dealing with offence under section 306/34 IPC the Apex Court held as under: "the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. It is transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance dischord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance dischord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. " 7-II. In Padmabai v. State of MP 1987 cri. L. J. 1573 it has been held: "it is of the essence of the crime of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in a commission of the offence of suicide. Investigation, incitement,provocation,encouragement , insinuation, solicitation, which words connote different meanings are, no doubt, some of the acts, which may constitute an abetment for commission of suicide. But all such acts or any of them have to be positive and potent in nature, of such a degree, that the direct result of such acts may be none other, but the commission of suicide. Stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law, to her daughter-in-law in the Indian society, crude and uncultured behaviour by the in-laws or the husband towards his wife being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families, will not go to form and constitute abetment unless these acts or conduct singly or cumulatively, are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide or may facilitate in a singular and prime manner, the commission of the same. " 7-III. In Mahendra Singh vs. State of MP 1995 supp. (3)SCC 731 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section306/34 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: "my mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husbands elder brothers 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 reason and being harassed I want to die by burning. " honble Apex Court considering the definition of abetment u/s 107 IPC found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 306/34 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reason and being harassed I want to die by burning. " honble Apex Court considering the definition of abetment u/s 107 IPC found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 306/34 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. Because none of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of deceased. 7-IV. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh 2001 (9) SCC 618 Apex Court while considering the charge and conviction for an offence u/s 306/34 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate were she stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go anywhere she wanted to go and thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused apex Court held : "a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow can not be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive or ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. " ( 8. ) I have gone through the FIR as well as police statements recorded by prosecution of Shyamlal. Mohd. Samim , Sahablal @ Shivlal and Suresh. All of them have stated that Sapna did not want to live with her husband because he used to doubt on her character as well as he wanted that she should live with his parents therefore, out of frustration or depression he inflicted the injury to himself by broken glass in front of her. Immediately he was taken to W. C. Hospital by applicant no. 1 madholal where he succumbed to death. Looking to the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C of witnesses shyamlal, Mohd. Immediately he was taken to W. C. Hospital by applicant no. 1 madholal where he succumbed to death. Looking to the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C of witnesses shyamlal, Mohd. Samim , Sahablal @ Shivlal and Suresh, it cannot be said or infer that deceased Sahablal committed suicide as a result of abetment by the applicants. There is not an iota of evidence regarding abetment. The incident took place on 21/01/06 at about 19. 00 P. M. His father-inlaw/ applicant no. 1 immediately taken him to W. C. Hospital for treatment where he succumbed to death. ( 9. ) SUBSTANCE of the prosecution case clearly shows that the deceased Shahablal was in great stress and depression. One plausible reason could be that his wife Sapna was not prepared to live with his parents and he used to doubt on her character. His postmortem report also reveals that he was indulge in drinking. He was a frustrated depressed man, looking to his act of suicide in front of applicants suggests that he was not a man with sound mind and sense. However, in my opinion, it is very clear that even if the entire allegations levelled against the accused be accepted as correct and true on their face value ( as are being accepted as correct and true at this stage on their face value), no case for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC is made out against the accused/applicants. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for an offence u/s 306/34 of IPC. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to only one conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone and none of applicants are responsible for his suicide. ( 11. ) IN the result, this revision petition succeeds. The charge framed against the applicants by ASJ, Betul in S. T. No. 194/06 for an offence u/s 306/34 of IPC is hereby quashed.