JUDGMENT 1. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.1996, passed by Sessions Court, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.138/96, whereby he is convicted under section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (short “IPC”) and sentenced to 5 years RI together with fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default stipulation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-Suresh Pandey and the deceased-Smt. Seema Sharma, were married on 9.5.1993. From the said wedlock, one daughter was born. The appellant was working as guard in the railways. On 4.4.1996, deceased-Smt. Seema Sharma consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. She was admitted in District Hospital, Ratlam for treatment at 7:10 p.m. in the evening. She was examined by Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW4). During medical examination she deposed that at 6:45 in the evening, she consumed sulfas tablets. This intimation was given by the Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW4) to the police station vide Ex.P-6. She was admitted in the hospital and during treatment, she died on the same day, i.e., 4.4.1996. Intimation of death was given to the police on the basis of which murg was registered vide Ex.P-8. City Superintendent of Police came to hospital and after giving notice to the witness vide Ex.P-2 inquest was prepared by him vide Ex.P-3 and she was sent for post-mortem. Her autopsy was conducted by Dr. Arun Purohit (PW1) on 5.4.1996. Exhibit P-1 is post-mortem report. As per post-mortem report no definite opinion was given by the Dr. Arun Purohit (PW1). Her viscera was sent for medical examination and as per viscera report, she died by consuming sulfas or organe phosphorous compound. During investigation, police statements of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased were recorded. As per their police statements relation of appellant with her was not good and due to his cruel behaviour, she committed suicide. 3. After investigation charge was filed under section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the trial Court on 5.7.1996. The charge was framed under section 306 of IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. During trial statements of Dr. 3. After investigation charge was filed under section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the trial Court on 5.7.1996. The charge was framed under section 306 of IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. During trial statements of Dr. Arun Purohit (PW1), Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased, Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased, Investigating Officer, City Superintendent of Police Himat Singh (PW5), handwriting expert Avdesh Chandra Namdev (PW6) and statement of Head Constable, Radheyshyam Sharma (PW7) were recorded. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 306 of IPC and sentenced him as aforenoted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the statement of father of the deceased Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3) and Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and submitted that there are material omission in their police statements and witnesses are not reliable. It is also submitted that from the statements of prosecution witnesses, no case for abetment or instigation has been established. The learned trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant under section 306 of IPC and prays for his acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate drew my attention to the reasoning assigned by the trial Court, but on due consideration of the statements of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased very fairly admitted that none of the ingredients to attract the provisions of section 306 of IPC has been established. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As per statements of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased behaviour of the appellant was not good with his wife. On a close and careful scrutiny of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased, I find that appellant and the deceased had got married in the year 1993 and they had enjoyed a happy life for a period of 3 to 6 months and thereafter, behaviour of the appellant was not good with the deceased and due to the aforesaid reasons, the relationship was not good. Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), father of the deceased in his statement has deposed that there was no physical relationship between the appellant and the deceased. (PW2) Smt. Basant Bai, mother of the deceased in para 3 of his statement has deposed that from their wedlock one daughter was born. The oral evidence of the PW3 that there was no physical relationship between the appellant and the deceased appears to be incorrect. 8. The legal position as regards section 306 IPC which is long settled was reiterated by the apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2004)13 SCC 129 ], as follows in paras 12 and 13 : “12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commision of offence under section 306 IPC. 13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, this Court has observed that the Courts 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. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to 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 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme 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. 10. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [ (2007)10 SCC 797 ], apex Court gave a clear exposition of section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6 : “6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing.The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. 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. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.” 11. “Abetted” in section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.” 11. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme 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 of 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 there 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. 12. 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. 13. After careful assessing the evidence of Smt. Basanti Bai (PW2), mother of the deceased and Shri Shiv Shankar Arya (PW3), I find that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. 14. From the evidence of record available before us, I find that the prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant, after his marriage with the deceased. 14. From the evidence of record available before us, I find that the prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant, after his marriage with the deceased. From the statements of PW2 and PW3 as well as other prosecution witnesses, it is clear that deceased complained to her parents about the behaviour of her husband. Exhibit P-15 is inland letter written by the deceased. From the said letter it is true that the relation of the deceased with her husband was not good. Appellant was torturing her and due to the aforesaid reason, she was hurt, but from the above, it cannot be said that the appellant instigated her to commit suicide. 15. In the above circumstances and in absence of any materials, I am of the considered view that no case for conviction of the appellant under section 306 of IPC is made out, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.The appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. .............