ORDER : Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Although the matter is listed today at motion hearing stage, but on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed assailing the order dated 16-8-2016 whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna Camp Amarpatan has framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 3400181/2016. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Deepak Kumar was a student in the Higher Secondary School, Village Harrai, District Satna. The applicant was Incharge Principal of the said school in the relevant period. In the said School, girl students namely Priyanka and Kalpana Jaiswal were also studying. 4. Allegedly, the deceased wrote obscene letters to the girl students. Having come to know about the same by a complaint, the applicant-Incharge Principal called the student Deepak Kumar and admonished and also beaten him. It is alleged that on the following day, the deceased Deepak Kumar did not come to the School. Search was conducted by his relatives. Harishankar Tiwari found the dead body of the deceased hanging in a mango tree in the field. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. The medical officer on 12-2-2016 after examination has opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia, which is result of hanging. No external or internal injuries were found on the body of deceased. After the investigation, the Police Station Ram Nagar filed the charge-sheet. Learned ASJ framed the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant-Incharge Principal of the School. 5. On behalf of the applicant, the impugned order is assailed on several grounds. It is stated that the FIR was lodged after about 3½ months. The applicant is innocent. It is also claimed that the deceased had written a letter in a language, which is derogatory to the co-students. It is also claimed that on a written complaint about the said letter of the deceased, the Incharge Principal intimated the incident to the other staff teachers and also directed to intimate the parents of deceased Deepak Kumar, because it involved the dignity of the School. It is also claimed that on a written complaint about the said letter of the deceased, the Incharge Principal intimated the incident to the other staff teachers and also directed to intimate the parents of deceased Deepak Kumar, because it involved the dignity of the School. It is further claimed that general action was taken by the Incharge Principal. Alphabets “RS” were found on the left hand palm of deceased. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that this writing could have been made later by the family members of the deceased to implicate the applicant and to concoct a false story. 7. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the contentions and submitted that the charge framed is well-merited. 8. To understand this position, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 306 of Indian Penal Code, which reads thus; “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.” 9. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes “abetment” as has been defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, which read 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 of that thing; or Thirdly — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 10. At the time of framing of charge the material on record has to be considered and no rebuttal evidence can be seen. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, and in absence of any rebuttal, if the accused can be convicted for any particular offence, then charges for that offence can be framed. 11. The word “instigation” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein it is held in para 20 as under :— “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. 11. The word “instigation” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein it is held in para 20 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 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 the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 12. The word ‘instigation’ means intent to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. The applicant was Incharge Principal of the School and he was duty bound to admonish the deceased for not to do such an act, which could bring disrepute to the School moreso he is also morally responsible to look after the welfare of the girl-students of that School. It is not alleged that the applicant has done anything which would constitute ‘instigation’ and ‘goading’ the deceased to commit the suicide. ‘Abetment’ involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally instigating a person for doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 13. The intention of the Legislature and ratio of cases decided by this Court and the Apex Court makes it clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there should be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires the act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide except no option and this act must be intended to push the deceased in such a condition that he committed suicide. 14. In Pappu Khare vs. State of M.P., 2015(2) M.P.H.T. 271 this Court has held as under :— “13. It also requires the act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide except no option and this act must be intended to push the deceased in such a condition that he committed suicide. 14. In Pappu Khare vs. State of M.P., 2015(2) M.P.H.T. 271 this Court has held as under :— “13. In the present case also, evidence collected by the prosecution indicates that there is no overt act fall within the purview of sections 107 and 109 of the Code and therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under section 306 of the Code is made out against the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order framing charge under section 306 of the Code of the petitioner/accused deserves to be set aside.” 15. In a similar case, Rohit Yadav vs. State of M.P. and another, 2014(5) M.P.H.T. 414 wherein it is alleged that accused persons were stalking the deceased while they were going to office and harassed them. Because of which, the deceased persons committed suicide at their residence. It is held by this Court that the action of the petitioner falls in different category of crime but not under abetment to commit suicide. 16. In the present case, the applicant/Incharge Principal of the School had performed his duty and never intended to commit any abetment. It would be appropriate to observe that if the teachers are treated in such manner, no teacher would come forward to cause discipline among the students. 17. As the element of mens rea with regard to ‘abetment’ is lacking in this case, it would not be correct to prosecute the applicant. The essential ingredients of abetment are missing, hence this Court is of the opinion that prima facie the evidence available in the record, does not constitute the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant. 18. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16-8-2016 passed by the trial Court is set aside.