JUDGMENT : 1. Both these criminal revision are arising out of the order dated 20-4-2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 58/2015 framing charge against the accused/applicant under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of committing suicide by the deceased Prabhat Katre. 2. As per prosecution story in the intervening night of 27th-28th November, 2014 dead body was found on the railway track near Bandwa-wada Railway Line, Pole. No. 911/25 District Shahdol. A margh was registered by GRP Shahdol on the intimation of Mohamad Hafiz. The inquest was done and from the pocket of deceased a hand written suicide note was recovered contending that four persons are responsible for his death, who must be punished. It is further said that these four persons have taken huge amount from him , but not repaid and harassing, however on account of said misdeed I feel ashamed in the market. The hand writing of the deceased in the suicide note was acknowledged by his brother in his statement, and said by instigation of accused, deceased was facing mental trauma and harassment. The said fact has also been concurred in the statement of the friends and relatives, however the offence under sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Crime No. 803/2014 at police station Kotwali, District Shahdol against the accused/applicant and two others. 3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the case was committed to the court of Session where the charge under section 306/34 was framed by the order impugned dated 20-4-2015 against the present two applicants and two other persons (Babulu Sindhi and Rahul Singh Rana). The said order of framing charge has been assailed by present two applicants only. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants have strenuously urged that if case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, still on the basis of the material collected by the prosecution offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the present applicants. Embarking upon the suicide note seized from the deceased urged that on plain reading thereof, neither any act of instigation on the part of the present applicants to do something to deceased nor any conspiracy hatched, which may ultimately result to the commission of suicide is made out. Embarking upon the suicide note seized from the deceased urged that on plain reading thereof, neither any act of instigation on the part of the present applicants to do something to deceased nor any conspiracy hatched, which may ultimately result to the commission of suicide is made out. In the said facts, the present applicants cannot be said to have abetted the commission of offence to deceased. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. (SC) 894, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 . Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2005 SC 1775 , Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 and further reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court and Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaiji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1995 M.P.L.J. 458, Rajesh Shivhare vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004(4) M.P.H.T. 7 (NOC), Vishnu Prasad vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005(3) M.P.L.J. 23 , Babbi @ Jitendra and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008 (2) M.P.H.T. 160 , Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 3066. However prayed for setting aside the order impugned with further prayer to discharge them. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel for complainant/respondent has argued in support of the order framing charge inter alia contending that suicide note cannot be read de hors other material including statements of Ravi Kishan Katare, Saurabh Katre, Smt. Ranjana Katare, Dwarika Prasad Katare and Ajay Gupta, indicating the loan transaction from deceased by those accused persons, which caused mental trauma persuading him to commit suicide because deceased was not in a position to face the market. It is urged, for the purpose of framing charge sufficient material has been collected and brought by the prosecution to presume that the present applicants and two other accused have committed an act of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased, however the Court of Session has not committed error to frame charge against the present applicants. It is urged, for the purpose of framing charge sufficient material has been collected and brought by the prosecution to presume that the present applicants and two other accused have committed an act of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased, however the Court of Session has not committed error to frame charge against the present applicants. Learned counsel for the respondent have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court; in the cases of Didggam Bikshapathi and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 514 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2010 SC 1446 and Reetesh @ Sheru vs. State of M.P, reported in 2010(2) M.P.L.J (Cri.) 62, and of this Court in the case of Raghuraj Singh and another vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 361, however prayed for dismissal of these revisions. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the facts of the case, question arises as to whether on consideration of the material brought on record the prima facie case for abetment to commit suicide to frame charge under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against applicants is made out or not? 7. It is to be noted that as per section 306 of Indian Penal Code when deceased committed suicide then whosoever abets for commitment of suicide shall be punished. The "abetment" has been specified in Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code. To understand the meaning of the connotation "abetment" it would be necessary to refer the same in verbatum, however it is reproduced as thus :- Section 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. Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code deals abetment and abetment of things, which is specified in section 107, however it is reproduced as thus :- Section 107. Abetment of a thing. Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code deals abetment and abetment of things, which is specified in section 107, however it is reproduced as thus :- Section 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. 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. Explanation 2. - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 8. Bare reading of the aforesaid, it appears that a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if three ingredients is made available. Firstly instigate any person to do that thing; or Secondly engage 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 an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Its explanation states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact requires to be disclosed may come within purview of "abetment" thus mandatorily under all three situations involvement of a person or persons in the commission of the offence of suicide is necessary to frame charge, which may be brought at home during trial bringing cogent evidence, while proving or disproving the guilt. 9. Thus looking to the first clause of section 107 of Indian Penal Code if a person have abetted in doing of thing instigate to a person to commit suicide would be sufficient to frame charge. 9. Thus looking to the first clause of section 107 of Indian Penal Code if a person have abetted in doing of thing instigate to a person to commit suicide would be sufficient to frame charge. As per material collected by the prosecution the present case may fall within the purview of first clause of the said section. In this regard meaning of word "instigate" would be material which is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. But the meaning of said word was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 and said "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 consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Although, the charge under section 306 was not found prove looking to the evidence brought on record during trial, but to understand the meaning of the word "instigation" specified in First Clause of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code the reference is being made hereinabove. 10. In view of the aforesaid we have to understand the meaning of word "goad" as per Concise Oxford English Dictionary "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction"; as per Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (someone into something or to do something) to urge or provoke them to action; as per Google translate "provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction. (He goaded her on to more daring revelations). Its synonyms: provoke, spur, prod, egg on hound, badger, incite. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edition "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts". (He goaded her on to more daring revelations). Its synonyms: provoke, spur, prod, egg on hound, badger, incite. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edition "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts". Similarly; as per Chambers 21st Century Dictionary the word "urge" means to persuade someone forcefully or incite them (to do something), to beg or entreat someone (to do something), to earnestly advise or recommend, to drive or hurry (onwards, forwards). Thus it is clear that if a person instigate another has to goad or urge forward with an intent to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 11. That the aforesaid has been considered in the context of framing of the charge by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2010 SC 1446 has held as under in para 15, which is reproduced as under :- 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 Advance 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 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. As observed 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 connected 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 encourages the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 12. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed above the factual aspect to the case at hand is required to be analyzed. In this regard the suicide note received from the pocket of the deceased is relevant. The suicide note has been written in the hand writing of deceased as per 161 statement of Ravi Krishan Katare, further acknowledging the pages of the diary indicating money transaction, and the abusive language used by Amitabh Sharma (applicant) on 6-10-2013, and also supported by the other statement of Ajay Gupta, Saurabh Katare, Smt. Ranjana Katare, and Dwarika Prasad Katare. 13. The suicide note is reproduced as under :- 14. A perusal of the contents of the suicide note makes it amply clear that present two applicants as well as two other persons namely Ballu Sindhi and Rahul Singh Rana were responsible to instigate or to goad or urge forward to the deceased creating a situation to take extreme action. Their act was shown to be of such mental agony whereby the deceased was not in a position to face the market and feel ashamed however the accused may be punished. In this respect the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) is also relevant however reproduced as under :- "16. ........ In this respect the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) is also relevant however reproduced as under :- "16. ........ 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." 15. In light of the legal and factual matrix as discussed hereinabove, in my considered opinion prima facie material constituting the offence of abetment to commit suicide for the purpose framing the charge is collected by prosecution, however arguments as advanced by the counsel for the applicants cannot be countenanced. 16. It is observed that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to consider material and the ground for presuming the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that by such material accused be convicted, as reveals from the judgment of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1960. In the said case the Court observed that at the stage of framing the charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 17. In addition reverting to the duty of this Court to deal with the judgments placed for consideration by either parties. 17. In addition reverting to the duty of this Court to deal with the judgments placed for consideration by either parties. In this regard the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant requires to be dealt with first; in the case of Mahendra Singh (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the dying declaration of the deceased as per its language and looking to the fact that accused already undergone sentence under section 498-A and probability of instigation was not found to be correct. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh (supra) the issue arise for consideration was that accused told the deceased 'to go and die'. Court found that this itself would not constitute the ingredient of instigation as presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. In this regard it is suffice to observe that any word urged in fit of anger or emotion without intending consequence to actual follow cannot be said to be instigation. Similarly in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) looking to the material brought on record the court found that ingredient to prove charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not made out explaining the therefore acquitted them, mens rea to activate act by accused is not established, which is essential to constitute the offence. In the judgments of this Court as well as Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the applicant in the case of Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaiji (supra), the court found that no case of goad or urge forward, provoke, incited or encourage the deceased is made out. It is said that merely goading to the deceased asking refund or to repay the amount advanced by the accused would not constitute offence, therefore, the charge were not made proved. Similar in the case of Rajesh Shivhare (supra), Vishnu Prasad (supra), and Babbi @ Jitendra and others (supra) wherein accused persons demanded the repayment of money advanced to deceased; but here in the present facts position is converse and by such act accused is not in a position to face market and feeling ashamed. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, with respect to factual matrix in this case, aforesaid judgments are of no help to the applicants. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, with respect to factual matrix in this case, aforesaid judgments are of no help to the applicants. 18. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and on the basis of the material brought on record prima facie evidence to presume for constituting offence under section 306/34 is made out to frame the charge, however the judgments as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Digigam Bikshapathi and another (supra), Reetesh @ Sheru did not require consideration further and to burden the judgment because those judgments are in consonance to the law discussed hereinabove in the context of judgment of Ramesh Kumar (supra) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra). 19. In view of the foregoing discussion as per legal position enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and further due to availability of the basic ingredients the trial court found prima facie material to presume that offence for the purpose of framing of charge is made out, however in the said facts interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. 20. It is yet required to observe that the discussion made above regarding factual matrix and the evidence collected by prosecution, this Court has expressed its view only with respect to framing of the charge, which should not be understood to deal with merits, however it shall be subject to final outcome of the trial based on the material and evidence brought by the parties before the Court. Consequently, in view of the said observation both the criminal revision filed by the accused/applicant challenging the order framing charge is meritless, hence dismissed, in the facts parties to bear their own costs.