JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioners-accused is directed against an order dated 1/7/2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 142/13 by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Bhind district Bhind (M.P.), framing charges against accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer in this petition only to the extent of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. while for rest of the charges he does not press this petition. 3. Accordingly, the arguments only on the aspect of framing of charge for committing offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. are heard. 4. The brief facts, just for the decision of this revision petition are that on 18/10/2013, at 2-30 p.m., in the noon, Smt. Vimlesh, wife of petitioner No. 1-Sanjay Pratap Singh @ Sonu committed suicide and died by hanging herself. On the report of Bhanwar Singh, Marg was registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind. After enquiry, the FIR was lodged. During inquiry, it was gathered that Vimlesh was married with petitioner No. 1-Sanjay Pratap Singh @ Sonu S/o. Ramesh Singh Bhadoriya on 11th May, 2005. After her marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment for the demand of Rs. two lacs and other articles and for non-fulfillment of the said demands by her parents, she was mentally as well as physically harassed. Consequently, on 18/10/2012, at 2-30 p.m. at her matrimonial house, she after committing suicide died, after seven and half years of her marriage. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial Magistrate. On committal, the sessions trial was commenced and the charges for commission of the alleges offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. have been framed against the petitioners by the order impugned, hence, this revision. 5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the charge-sheet are taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. has been made out against the present petitioners. have been framed against the petitioners by the order impugned, hence, this revision. 5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that even if all the allegations as mentioned in the charge-sheet are taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. has been made out against the present petitioners. It is further submitted that without any allegation amounting to abetment under Section 107 I.P.C., no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be said to have been committed by the accused-persons, but the said fact has been ignored by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted by the counsel that only vague allegations of illegal demand of dowry were made and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners in regard to committing cruelty. No independent witness has supported the version of incident in their case diary statements. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the impugned order be set aside. 6. The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, entire case has been examined. 8. The question for consideration before this court is whether the petitioners/accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, the deceased committed suicide, which is an offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.? 9. In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be necessary to look to the relevant provisions of the law. 10. Section 306 I.P.C. under which the accused is charged reads as under: "306 I.P.C. 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." 11. Section 107 I.P.C. sets out as to what constitutes abetment. The Section reads as follows: "107. 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. 12. 12. A plain reading of the provisions of section 306 of I.P.C. makes it clear that before a person can be charged of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide being abetted by that person. Thus, where the evidence is insufficient to show suicide, section 306 of I.P.C. goes out of the way but where the facts and circumstances spell out a suicide and there is evidence prima facie against the accused-petitioners for proceeding against them, provisions are attracted. 13. In this case admittedly, suicide was committed by Vimlesh, after a period of 7 and 1/2 years from the date of her marriage, therefore, provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act will not be applicable and no presumption can be drawn against the petitioners/accused. 14. Now, from the evidence of the witnesses the actual position whether Vimlesh was abetted by the petitioners to commit suicide or not has to be viewed. 15. On perusal of the statements of Anirudh Singh Sengar, brother of the deceased, Savitridevi, mother of the deceased, Krishna Avatar Singh Sengar, father of the deceased, it seems that they have made allegations against the petitioners that they were raising demand of dowry and because of non-fulfillment of their illegal demands, Vimlesh was beaten by her husband, i.e., petitioner No. 1-Sanjay Pratap Singh @ Sonu after taking liquor. Specific date was not mentioned as to when the deceased was beaten. On perusal of the post-mortem report dated 19/10/12, it is evident that no external injuries were found present on the body of the deceased to demonstrate that she was beaten just before her death. The post-mortem report discloses that ligature marks were found; blood was oozing from the nostril and the eyes were closed. As per the doctor, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to ante-mortem hanging. All this shows that Vimlesh was subjected to cruelty and harassment caused by the petitioners for want of fulfillment of their desire. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the petitioners had played any active role either in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the deceased. Thus, in the light of the material on record, it can certainly be concluded that the trial court fell in error in drawing an inference that the petitioners had "instigated" the deceased to commit suicide. 16. Thus, in the light of the material on record, it can certainly be concluded that the trial court fell in error in drawing an inference that the petitioners had "instigated" the deceased to commit suicide. 16. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & others : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 664, it was held by Hon. Apex court that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws, due to disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide, will not attract Section 306 read with section 107 of I.P.C. Prior to above, in the case of Wazir Chand Vs. State of Haryana : AIR 1989 SC 378 ) same view was taken. It was also reiterated subsequently in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. : AIR 2002 SC 1998 ). 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case so to constitute an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The impugned order dated 1/7/2013 framing charge against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. only to that extent therefore stands set aside. Other charges framed against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act shall continue and the petitioners shall be tried accordingly for these offences. It is further made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein before and shall be free to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed in part as mentioned above. 19. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.