Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Ramji Lal, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.12.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur (hereinafter as trial Court), convicting the accused (herein appellant) for committing offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergc rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under :- "2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by Puran Chand son of Surja Ram, he is resident of Village Sappan Wali and is an agriculturist by profession. He has one son and one daughter namely Raj Bala. Raj Bala was maried with Ramji Lal alias Pappu, resident of Village Dharampura about 8/9 years back but Ramji Lal used to maltreat his daughter. She gave birth to three sons but one of her sons died in her life time and her elder sons name is Sukhdev Singh, while the name of younger son is Ravi Kumar, who was aged about four years. At the time of birth of Ravi Kumar, he (complainant) gave sufficient gifts to the accused as per his status but he could not please Ramji Lal and he used to beat Raj Bala and when he used to go to his daughter, she used to narrate the tales of misery. On return to his village, he used to feel about sorry state of affairs and narrate maltretment suffered by his daughter to his brother Dhanna Ram and Doonger Ram. In this regards, he also convened a Panchayat and tried to reason out with the accused but to no avail. On. 18.5.2000, he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter at Dharampura, but he did not see his daughter there. When he asked about Raj Bala from his son-in-law Ramji Lal, he showed ignorance which made him suspect foul play and he was convinced that his daughter has gone away from the matrimonial house due to cruel behviour of his brother-in-law. When he asked about Raj Bala from his son-in-law Ramji Lal, he showed ignorance which made him suspect foul play and he was convinced that his daughter has gone away from the matrimonial house due to cruel behviour of his brother-in-law. He returned to his village and told his brother Dhanna Ram and Doonger Ram about missing of his daughter and thereafter, he took Sona Ram and Amar Dass, Panches of his Village to the Police Station, Abohar and informed the matter to the police and thereafter, he went on searching for his daughter but he could not collect her whereabouts. On the morning of 20.5.2000, when he along with Sub hash Chander and Sat Narain was searching for Raj Bala near Daulatpura, minor, he saw a dead body near the village Panjawa Mangal and when dead body approached near him, he recognized it as Raj Bala and thereafter, all of them took out dead body, when they took it out, he saw that on the back side of the dead body of Raj Bala, the dead body of Ravi Kumar was also tied with a piece of cloth. On the basis of statement, the instant FIR was registered and the investigation was put into, motion." 3. The accused was charge-sheeted under Section 306 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar, PW 1, who conducted the autopsy of the corpse of deceased Raj Bala and Ravi Kumar and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia which occurred due to drowning; Puran Ram, PW-2 (complainant); Dhanna Ram, PW 3; Subhash Chander S/o Narang Lal, PW 4; Sita Ram (Photographer), PW 5; PHC Gurjit Singh, PW 6, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P-1 7; LC Karamjit Singh, PW 7, who was deputed to send the special reports to the Senior Officers and ASI Mohinder Singh; PW 8, who conducted investigation in the instant case. 5. On being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 5. On being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused-appellant Ramji Lal under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him for the term as indicated in `pars 1 of this judgment, vide judgment and order dated 5.12.2001. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel has argued that the complainant, in the instant case, has admitted the fact that the marriage of the deceased-Raj Bala was solemnised with the accused-appellant about 10-11 years back. Three sons were born out of the wedlock. Learned counsel has argued that the allegations of demand of dowry have been attributed to the appellant but no specific incident in this regard has been indicated. Even as per the statement of Puran Chand- complainant, PW 2, demand was raised 2-3 years prior to the occurrence. It has also further come in his statement that he along with Dhanna Ram, PW 3 and Subhash Chander, PW 4, visited the house of the accused and tried to persuade the accused- appellant not to harass the deceased. He has further submitted that apart from this solitary incident, which has allegedly occurred 2 3 years prior to the date of occurrence, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that there existed any dispute between the deceased-wife and the appellant- husband. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that there is nothing on record which may show that there was any instigation, provocation or any positive act on the part of the appellant which lead the deceased to go for such an extreme step, therefore, the ingredients of Section 107 IPC, are not fulfilled. There is nothing on record to suggest that the incident, in question, has taken place due to the act of provocation of the part on the appellant. This act of committing suicide by wife-Raj Bala was an individual and independent act resulting into her death. He has further placed relieance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 196 wherein it has been held as under :- "14. This act of committing suicide by wife-Raj Bala was an individual and independent act resulting into her death. He has further placed relieance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 196 wherein it has been held as under :- "14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 4. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R. C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation"; though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation"may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 15. Thus, to constitute "instigation" a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); `to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See : Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary-7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumars case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation " may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mensrea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 8. Further, in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 643, the Honble Apex Court observed as under :- 15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. The expression abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence." 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is nothing on record to establish that the appellant had mens rea that the deceased should take the extreme step of committing suicide. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed relieance on a judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 603 wherein, it has been held as under :- "18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 19. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation"and "goading". Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 19. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation"and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each persons suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused-to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 10. The learned counsel for the State has argued that two innocent lives were lost in the incident. The appellant had been harassing, his wife and demanding money from her which forced her to take this extreme step of committing suicide. Learned counsel has also produced custody certificate of the appellant which is taken on record. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The important questions that emerge for consideration of this Court are: whether there is any specific incident with regard to harassment and maltreatment and; whether there was any instigation, provocation or positive act on the part of the appellant which resulted into this unfortunate incident. 13. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The important questions that emerge for consideration of this Court are: whether there is any specific incident with regard to harassment and maltreatment and; whether there was any instigation, provocation or positive act on the part of the appellant which resulted into this unfortunate incident. 13. Admittedly, as per statement of complainant-Puran Ram, PW 2, except one incident allegedly taken place 2-3 years prior to the date of the occurrence, no other specific incident or instance has been given by him on the basis of which, it could be inferred that the deceased was subjected to harassment and maltreatment at the hands of the appellant. In my opinion, the allegations in the instant case are very vague and general in nature. 14. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., made the following statement :- "I am innocent. I and my brother sold a plot for Rs. 40,000/-. My father-in-law had taken the same for constructing a separate house for me as demanded by my wife. I handed over the money for house constructed. My father-in-law got constructed a two rooms house and spend only Rs. 20,000/ - for the same. My wife demanded the balance amount which my father-in-law was not returning. On 16.5.2000, she along with my son Ravi had gone to her father house and demanded the balance amount Rs. 20,000/-. On this account, there was quarrel with my wife and my father-in-law and other family members and she committed suicide on this account. I have been falsely implicated." 15. Before deciding the second question, a reading of Section 107, IPC, would be necessary in the present case:- "107. Abetment of a thing. 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. -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." 16. In the instant case, the facts as projected by the prosecution, are not sufficient to hold that the ingredients of Section 107 are fulfilled in the instant case. There is nothing to show as to how the appellant has instigated, provoked or committed any positive act which forced the deceased to commit suicide. Mens rea is of utmost importance before a person is charged with the offence of abetment. From the facts on record, is not proved that the appellant had any intention or mens rea and liable for provocating his wife to go for the unfortunate step of committing suicide. 17. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.12.2001 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. 18. Ordered accordingly.