ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein/accused has filed this Criminal Revision under sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 24-7-2012 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 127/2012 whereby charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against him. 2. In short, the case of prosecution is that on 8-11-2011, one Chhotelal Ward-boy of District Hospital, Vidisha has given information in the Police Station Kotwali, Vidisha to the effect that one Dinesh S/o Narayan Singh (since deceased) died during treatment in the District Hospital, Vidisha, on which a merg under section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. The merg was inquired into. On an enquiry, it was found that the petitioner/accused was defaming his wife, Smt. Kamlesh by falsely imputing upon her character and upon such instigation, the deceased, Dinesh committed suicide on 8-11-2011 by consuming the organophosphorus, therefore, an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused, Shambhu Singh. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner/accused before the Committal Court, which on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the trial Court for the trial. 3. Learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased, it is evident that the accused used to utter slander in respect of the character of wife of the deceased thereby damaging her reputation. On this, he felt very much ashamed and, therefore, he committed suicide by consuming organo-phosphorus. Learned counsel further submits that even though the entire case of the prosecution is accepted in toto, then also no offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out as the necessary ingredients of the offence are totally missing. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petition may be allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner under section 306 of Indian Penal Code may be quashed as well as discharge him from the aforesaid charge. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the petition may be allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner under section 306 of Indian Penal Code may be quashed as well as discharge him from the aforesaid charge. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Madiya alias Mahadev vs. State of M.P. 2006 Cri. L.J. 1963 (ii) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998 (MP) (iii) Alka Grewal vs. State of M.P. 2000 Cri. L.J. 672 (MP) 5. In response, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that deceased, Dinesh in his oral dying declaration stated that petitioner used to defame his wife by falsely imputing upon her character, this was the main cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Panel Lawyer prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: “306. Abetment of Suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that, a person committed suicide and (ii) such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under section 306 would stand only if there is an “abetment” for the commission of the crime. 8. The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment of a thing as follows: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. Second - 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. Third - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Second - 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. Third - 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.” 9. As per the section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment.” It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. As per the said section, firstly; 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 Indian Penal Code. The meaning of the said word was considered by the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), 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. 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. 11. 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 Learner's 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. As observed by the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar's 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 mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 12. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 12. The Apex Court in Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (1) Criminal Appeal Reporter (SC) 492, by interpreting the provision of section 306 of Indian Penal Code held as under:- “8. 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 it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 9................ 10. Section 107 Indian Penal Code 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, 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. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) AIR SCW 4570].” 13. 11. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) AIR SCW 4570].” 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , observed that the question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self. 14. Now, the question for consideration is whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation would attract any one of the ingredients of section 107 of Indian Penal Code? 15. Admittedly, the deceased married with Kamlesh Bai, three years prior to the date of incident. The deceased committed suicide on 8-11-2011 by consuming organo-phosphorus. Narayan Singh (father of the deceased), Kamlesh (wife of the deceased), Priyanka (sister of the deceased), Mukesh, Manoj, Himmat Singh and Khuman Singh in their statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that Dinesh, the deceased told that Shambu used to defame his wife, Kamlesh by uttering derogatory remarks against her and maligns that she (Kamlesh) when unmarried had gone away with a boy. On this, he had chosen to commit suicide and consumed 'illi maar dava'. He further told that you people do not spare, Shambu. 16. In Madiya alias Mahadev (supra), the accused alleged to have tried to outrage modesty of deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by hanging with help of rope because she felt very much ashamed after two days of the incident. This Court held that period of two days which elapsed between two incidents showing that act of accused did not instigate her to commit suicide. This Court held that period of two days which elapsed between two incidents showing that act of accused did not instigate her to commit suicide. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh (supra), the accused telling the deceased ‘to go and die’ because of quarrel which took place between the accused and the deceased. The Apex Court held that this itself would not constitute the ingredient of instigation. It is also observed that presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. It was further observed the fact that deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which said words were uttered by accused would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel and the charge framed against the accused under section 306 of Indian Penal Code was liable to be quashed as ingredients of abetment were totally absent. In Alka Grewal (supra), husband committed suicide and in the suicide note it was stated that the character of the wife was immoral. This Court held that it is not sufficient to infer that wife abetted suicide. 17. In the matter of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, 1995 SCC (Cri) 943, wherein there was sexual jealousy between the appellant and the deceased and during quarrel the appellant allegedly remarked to the deceased to go and die and thereafter the deceased going home and committing suicide. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that suicide is not direct result of the words uttered by the appellant and Sessions Court erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial. 18. In the present case, when applied the definition of ‘abetment’ as given in section 107 of Indian Penal Code in light of the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decisions, then it becomes manifestly clear that the act of the petitioner/accused does not come under any of the categories enumerated in that section, unless the act of the petitioner/accused comes under any of the categories mentioned in that section, he could not be held guilt of the commission of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, the learned trial Court committed a mistake of law in framing charge against the petitioner/accused for the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 19. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. 19. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned trial Court framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is set aside and said charge is quashed. The petitioner is accordingly discharged from the offence. 20. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.