ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. Petition for bail under Section 439 Cr. PC. Offence alleged under Section 306 IPC. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in this case. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even taking the allegations as such in the FIR, it would not warrant an offence under Section 306 ISC. There is no intention on the part of the petitioner to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased. Out of emotion and frustration the deceased had committed suicide. For this petitioner cannot be blamed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited several decisions. 4. According to the learned Government Advocate, petitioner provoked the deceased to commit suicide by saying 'go end die'. He is responsible for her untimely death. He has abetted her commission of suicide. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the Case-Diary and also perused the several decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Petitioner is younger brother of deceased Amudha. On 25.2.2015, in her house, Amudha committed suicide. Based on the complaint of her husband Chinnasamy, a case for an offence under section 306 IPC has been registered as against his brother-in-law. He has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 7. Petitioner seeks bail. 8. The offence of abetment to commit suicide is punishable under section 306 IPC. 9. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. 10. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC. It reads as under: "107. Abetment of 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." 11. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994 SCC (Cri.) 107), the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned as under:- "The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of findings whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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." 12. In State of West Bengal (supra), the Hon'ble supreme Court observed that "If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord end difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should satisfied for ha sing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. state of M.P. and another (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438), a married woman had two paramours. On a morning, all the three had taken tea together, while talking, one of the paramour told the deceased, a married man 'go and die', the deceased went home in a dejected mood and committed suicide. Accused was proceeded with under section 306 IPC that he has abetted his commission of suicide. In the facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme court did not hold it abetment to commit suicide and observed as under: "First place it is difficult in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prime facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment to between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment to between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events." 14. In State of Gujarat v. Sunilkumar Kanaiyalal Jain (1997 Crl.L.J. 2014), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court with reference to Section 306 IPC observed that "better die today than tomorrow", if had been uttered cannot be said to be abetment in the eye of law since the words might have been uttered due to outburst of one's own fatuity or anger or consternation without any intention or knowledge or might be the rude or insulting, not with desire to instigate the person to commit suicide." 15. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ( AIR 2001 SC 3837 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the term 'instigation' as under:- "20. 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 to 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. 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." 16. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 16. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed also under:- "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation, if it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 17. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. ( AIR 2002 SC 1998 ), as regards 'abetment', the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "7. Section 107, IPC, defines abetment to mean that a person shots the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigate a any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persona in any conspiracy for that doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes piece 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." 18. In Randhir Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 , AIR 2004 SC 5097 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or Intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing, in case 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 role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abating the commission of offence under Section 306, IPC." 19. In Ananda Sekaran v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2007 1 L.W.(Crl.) 163, (2007) I MLJ (Crl) 406), in the course of a wordy altercation, the accused told his wife (whether you live or die). In Ananda Sekaran v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2007 1 L.W.(Crl.) 163, (2007) I MLJ (Crl) 406), in the course of a wordy altercation, the accused told his wife (whether you live or die). The wife committed suicide. Her husband has beep proceeded with for an offence under section 306 IPC. This Court referring to Swamy Prahaladdas (1995 Supp. (3) SC 436), held that it would not warrant an offence under Section 306 IPC. 20. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) ( (2009) 16 SCC 605 ), the Court referred to Sections 306 and 107IPC and observed as under:- "From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that 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." "13. As per Section 107 IPC, a person, can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that things; 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 things or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation to section 107 states that any willful misrepresentation or willful 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 IPC. "17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who investigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" of "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)." "18. 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)." "18. 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," "19. 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 he 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 willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful 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." 21. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading", The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally a person or intentionally aiding a persons is doing of a thing. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally a person or intentionally aiding a persons is doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to investigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requites an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. 22. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another ( 2010 (12) SCC 190 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 23. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal ( 2010 (1) SCC 707 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under:- "12. Thus, this 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 mated 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 terns of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 24. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 (1) SCC Cri. 917), it was held that to attract Section 306 IPC, there must be clear 'mens rea' to commit offence. 25. In M. Mohan v. D.S.P., Karaikudi ( 2011 (3) SCC 626 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "44. Abetment involves a mental process on instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have bean intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 26. In Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan ((2012) Cri. L.J. 2342), the Rajasthan High Court observed as under:- "10. The word 'urga' means to advice or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly or in a particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts or willful omission or conduct which may even be willful silence, until the deceased reacted, or pushing the deceased by his words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction. Secondly, the accused had the intention to provoke or urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation." 27. In Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra), it was also observed as under:- "13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide end in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission or suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act of facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must he proved and established by the prosecution before he could he convicted under Section 306 IPC." "34. The offence of abetment requires 'mens rea' (guilty mind). There must be intentional doing/aiding or goading the commission of suicides by another. Otherwise, even a mere casual remark, something said in routine and usual conversation will he wrongly construed or misunderstood as 'abetment'." 28. In Kirupagaran v. State by the inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police station, Chengalpattu East District (2013 (1) LW (Crl.) 549), the husband scolded his wife 'to go and die' and she was hurt by his words and poured kerosene on herself, set fine on her and committed suicide. The husband was prosecuted for an offence under Section 306 IPC. This Court relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it will not warrant an offence under Section 306 IPC and held as under:- "20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. 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 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. 17. 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. 17. Applying the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that even assuming the statement of the wife in Ex. P9 to be true and acceptable, the statement of the accused to the wife to go and die having been made on the spur of the movement and fit of anger cannot construe any mens rea or utterance of such words will not amount to an act of abatement so as to attract section 306 IPC." 29. In Mani v. Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai-32 (2014 (2) MWN (Cr.) 410, 204 (3) MLJ (Crl) 18), a youth followed a school going girl. She did not care him. It was one side love. He continued to follow her. Obsessed with that she committed suicide leaving a suicide note that she has committed suicide only because of him. The boy has been proceeded with for a offence under section 306 IPC that he has abetted her commission of suicide. This Court held that it would not warrant an offence under Section306 IPC. 30. In Mani (supra), the court observed as under:- "8. For an offence under Section 306, IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide. No need to explain what is suicide. But what is abetment has to be understood. It is 'instigation', 'provocation', compelling a person to do certain things or not to do certain things. This may be by words, deeds or writing or even by signs. May be humiliation, degrading a person in the presence of others. The act must be such that it must force, desire, compel a person to take the extreme decision. But, it must be a positive act. Thus, the act alleged to have committed on the part of the accused must have played a key role for the victim to take a decision to commit suicide. 9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission or suicide. 9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission or suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak mentality, a man of frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide. 45. Mere reprimanding does not amount to investigation. The words stated in a fit of anger will not amount to abetment. Casual remark of husband towards his wife in the ordinary course of life will not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Because they did not say so with requisition mens rea. (see Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995 supp. (3) SCC 438)." 31. In Rajamannar v. State, represented by the inspector of police, Sevvapet, Police Station, Thiruvallur District, Crl. O.P. No. 8230 of 2014 dated 3.4.2014, A-2 introduced A-1 to the deceased as a person, who will get Railway Jobs for money. Relying on this, the deceased collected money from many and give it to A-1. Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The job seekers pressurized the deceased to return their money. Under these circumstances, the deceased and his family members have committed suicide and the deceased left a Suicide Note that A-2 is responsible for their death. A-2 was arrested for an offence under section 306, IPC. 32. Thus it is seen that an offence under section 306 IPC requires twin requirements viz., suicide and abetment to commit suicide. The abetment is forcing a person to commit suicide. The abetment may take several forms. It may be by words, utterances, written, visible sign or it may be willful silence. It must be willful conduct on the part of the accused. But, if there is no intention on the part of the accused that the victim should die or it is only a casual remark or when casual remark has been taken seriously by the victim, it would not warrant an offence under Section 306 IPC. 33. In this case, petitioner is the younger brother of the deceased. She loved the de facto complainant. Both belongs to different castes. Ultimately, love marriage took place between them. The deceased has brother and sisters. Already a property dispute is going on between them. 33. In this case, petitioner is the younger brother of the deceased. She loved the de facto complainant. Both belongs to different castes. Ultimately, love marriage took place between them. The deceased has brother and sisters. Already a property dispute is going on between them. The deceased and the petitioner living in different portions in a same house. There was strained relationship between both. Petitioner did not like her love marriage. Deceased was obsessed with this. Further, they are fighting tooth and nail in a partition suit. Under these circumstances, on 25.2.2015, daughter of the deceased got injured. Petitioner scolded his sister/deceased that it is all because of her activities and she should die. In those circumstances, she consumed pesticides and committed suicide. 34. Already, there was no love last between both the families. In the course of a wordy altercation, in a fit of anger, petitioner seems to have scolded his sister that she should die. It would not be the wish of the petitioner that his sister should die. She is a weak minded lady. Suddenly she had jumped to a foolish decision and conclusion. Further already property dispute is pending between both sides. Further her love marriage with the de facto complainant has been disliked by the petitioner and others. In such circumstances, her commission of suicide may be for some other reasons also. 35. To hold a person liable under Section 306 IPC, there must be, willful conduct on the part of the accused in whatever mode it might be, and the victim is placed in such a situation that she has no other go than to commit suicide. The act of the accused is such that the deceased has been pushed to take such a decision then it will be an offence under section 306 IPC. But, in this case, it is not so. 36. In view of the foregoings, prima facie, an important element required for an offence under section 306 IPC is lacking in this case. Further, petitioner is in jail for a considerable period. Statement of witnesses have been recorded. Now petitioner cannot interfere with the investigation. And he will not flee away from justice. Thus, I am inclined to grant him bail. Ordered as under:- "(i) Bail granted; (ii) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. Further, petitioner is in jail for a considerable period. Statement of witnesses have been recorded. Now petitioner cannot interfere with the investigation. And he will not flee away from justice. Thus, I am inclined to grant him bail. Ordered as under:- "(i) Bail granted; (ii) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Gopichettipalayam; (iii) Petitioner shell stay in Salem and report before the Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem Town daily at 10,30 a.m., until further orders." This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution, by all concerned.