JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants are accused persons in Special Session Trial No. 2/2008 (State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and others), pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Jashpur at Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). 2. The applicants are aggrieved with the order dated 30-12-2010, whereby the learned Session Judge framed charges against them under Section 305, IPC and has discharged them from the offences punishable under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304- A, IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14-5-2007 at about 6.00 p.m., the applicants abetted deceased-Bhuneshwar, a' minor boy aged about 18 years, to climb on an electricity pole for some repairs, who came in contact with the electricity wire and fell down and died on account of electrocution. Initially the offence was registered under Section 304-A, IPC. Later on, offences under Sections 136 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were also added and the charge-sheet was filed. After hearing the arguments on charge, the learned Sessions Judge found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 305, IPC would be made out, and the charges were framed under the said Section of the IPC. 4. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, argued that even after admitting the entire prosecution, case, an offence under Section 305, IPC would not be made out. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Session Judge. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Criminal Revision, which contains the copy of the charge-sheet. 7. Section 305, IPC relates to abetment of suicide of child or insane person. It provides that if any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 8. The basic constituents of an offence under Section 305, are suicidal death of a person belonging to the special category mentioned in this Section and abetment thereof. 8. The basic constituents of an offence under Section 305, are suicidal death of a person belonging to the special category mentioned in this Section and abetment thereof. If the suicidal death is not of a person belonging to either of the categories, described in Section 305 the offence would fall under Section 306, IPC. The 'suicide' is stated to mean as the intentional killing of oneself. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Page 1447, 'Suicide' means- The act of taking one's own life, which is also termed as self-killing; self-destruction; self-slaughter; self-murder; felony de se. A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention, livery act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient. 9. In case on hand, the allegations are that the applicants, called the deceased for repairs of the electricity connection of their house and they also forced him to climb on the electricity pole. This clearly shows that the deceased never climbed on the pole to commit suicide or the deceased having an intention to commit suicide. In fact there is no material to establish that the death of the deceased was a "suicidal death" and nothing can be presumed in regard to the commission of the suicide by the deceased. As such the basic constituent of the offence under Section 305, IPC, i.e., "suicidal death" is lacking in the matter and for the said reason, prima facie, an offence under Section 305, IPC would not be made out. 10. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge committed material irregularity while framing the charges under Section 305, IPC. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing the charge under Section 305, IPC and the charges framed under Section 305, IPC as such, are quashed and the matter is remitted to the concerned Court for framing the charges under appropriate Section against the applicants in accordance with law.