ORDER : Mr. Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard. This petition has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dated 9-5-2016 whereby 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST No. 57/2016 has framed charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Filtering unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd November, 2015 the petitioner Khoob Singh Lodhi along with Ram Singh and Kalu Singh Lodhi inflicted injuries by kicks and fists to the deceased “Zero” @ Ram Sevak because of which he committed suicide by hanging himself in a nearby tree. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner Khoob Singh has been charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but keeping in view the facts of the case, no offence is made out for abetment of suicide. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, with vehemence and contended that because of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, by the petitioner and his associates, the deceased has taken the drastic step and ended his life. 5. Perused the police diary. As per post-mortem report, the death has been caused because of asphyxia by hanging. The father of the deceased Muralidhar informed the police that his son was habitual of having “Ganja” (Afim). He was also feeble in mind. The statement of mother of the deceased Sumat Rani, the alleged witness of the incident, she has stated that accused persons caught the deceased Ram Sevak and took him towards the road side and inflicted injuries by lathi. Ram Sevak was shouting for help. Sumat Rani went to home to call her husband Murlidhar. But she became unconscious after reaching her home. When she regained consciousness, she was at hospital. Murlidhar has stated that after his wife regained consciousness, she told him that Ram Sevak had a fight with the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The accused persons were beating him. When her wife returned to home she became unconscious because of high blood pressure. In the morning when they got up, he saw the deceased hanging in a nearby tree. The accused persons were beating him. When her wife returned to home she became unconscious because of high blood pressure. In the morning when they got up, he saw the deceased hanging in a nearby tree. Because of the injuries inflicted on him by the petitioner and other co-accused persons, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. Sumat Rani, Deepak Dubey, Gulla @ Mulayam, Govind Tiwari and Shivpal have stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself on the tree, because the petitioner and other accused persons inflicted injuries to him. 6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to understand, the provision of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which 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 of a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to file.” 7. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes “abetment”. “Abetment” has been defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows : “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. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (2) BLJ (S.C.) 113 = (2001) 9 SCC 618 , the Supreme Court has held as under : “20. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (2) BLJ (S.C.) 113 = (2001) 9 SCC 618 , the Supreme Court has held 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 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 the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 9. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., 2002(2) JLJ 275 (SC) it has been held that “abetment of suicide — abusive words hurled at deceased not direct cause of suicide — charge for offence under cannot be framed.” 10. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327 the Apex Court has held as under : “Section 107. Abetment — Involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding person to do certain thing — some positive act by accused — Essential to constitute abetment. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sawadiya vs. State of M.P., 2001 (I) MPWN 93 it has been observed that merely written in the suicidal note with regard to the beating by the accused and public humiliation also does not constitute the offence of instigating for commission of suicide against the accused person. 12. In the case of Abdul Hanif vs. State of M. P, 2002 (II) MPWN 12 it has been reiterated that merely threatening or beating by the accused persons to the deceased does not constitute any instigation for commission of suicide. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioner. 14. Thus, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-5-2016 so far as it pertains to the petitioner is set aside. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioner. 14. Thus, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-5-2016 so far as it pertains to the petitioner is set aside. However, it is observed that charges may be framed for other offences.