JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed as against the judgment dated 27.09.2011 made in S.C. No. 23 of 2011 and the file of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur thereby convicting the appellants and sentencing them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and to undergo 10 years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo 2 years of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. PW-1-Thangaian lodged a complaint alleging that on 10.01.2008 his son arrived from Chennai to his native. On that date about 9.30 pm, Tamilarasan, Kesavan, Krishnakumar and unknown persons were chasing his son at Kavanur Pillaiyar Temple and they were possessed with cricket bats and iron rod to attack his son. They had beaten him with wooden logs and thereafter his son was missing. Immediately a search was made by the said persons in the Palani Andavar Temple Tank which was located nearby. PW-1 also searched him on the tank and thereafter, he returned to his home. Thereafter he came to understand that his son, Stalin, Muthu and Sathyaraj molested a girl from Thirumathikunnam as such, the above said persons were chasing them. While being so on 13.01.2008 his wife at about 6 am while drawing water from the said tank, found that their son's body was floating. Immediately PW-1 rushed to the police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1. PW-19, Inspector of Police registered the complaint in Cr. No. 14/2008 for the offences Sections 147, 148, 302 and 306 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. PW-19 went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch marked as Exs.P.6 and P.7. The FIR is marked as Ex. P.5. 2.2. After examining the witnesses and conducted inquest on the dead body, he sent the dead body for postmortem. After recording the statement from the doctor who conducted postmortem and on receipt of the Postmortem Report Ex.P.8 he altered the offences in to one under Sections 147 and 306 of I.P.C. Since he was transferred to District Crime Branch, the entire case diary was handed over to PW-20. After recording the statement from the doctor who conducted postmortem and on receipt of the Postmortem Report Ex.P.8 he altered the offences in to one under Sections 147 and 306 of I.P.C. Since he was transferred to District Crime Branch, the entire case diary was handed over to PW-20. PW-20 Inspector of Police took up further investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 147 and 306 of I.P.C. 3. The Trial Court framed charges for the offences under Section 147 and 306 of I.P.C. and the accused denied the same. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.8 and produced material objects 1 to 3. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and the accused did not choose to let in any evidence. The Learned Trial Judge on going through the oral and documentary evidences, convicted the accused and sentenced them as stated above. Against the said conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the offences under Section 147 and 306 I.P.C. are not at all made out against the accused persons. There is absolutely no material to show that the deceased committed suicide. In order to attract the ingredients of the Section 306 I.P.C. as per the version of PW-1, the accused had beaten the deceased using cricket bat, iron rod and wooden log and thereafter his son was missing. Even after search made by them in the temple tank, they did not find him. In fact, PW-1 also searched the deceased in the temple tank and he did not find him. But he did not lodge any complaint for the alleged attack by the appellants and missing of his son. Therefore, the entire case has been foisted against the appellants since the deceased and the 4 others were involved in the case relating to outraging the molesty of woman in Crime No. 11 of 2008 registered for the offences under Sections 241, 323, 506(1) of I.P.C. Section 8 (1) of the Women Harassment Act. 5. The Learned Counsel for the appellants would further content that PW-2 had categorically admitted that she was enquired on the same day namely 10.01.2008 and 11.01.2008 respectively with regard to outraging the molesty of a Woman by her son and others. 5. The Learned Counsel for the appellants would further content that PW-2 had categorically admitted that she was enquired on the same day namely 10.01.2008 and 11.01.2008 respectively with regard to outraging the molesty of a Woman by her son and others. Even on the said enquiry she did not even whispered a word about missing of her son and allegedly beaten by the appellants herein. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is false and the appellants never indulged in any crime as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3, 4, 5, 6 PW-17 and PW-18. Admittedly, the deceased and his friends had committed offence as stated above and the police enquired them. In fact the victims in the said crime PW-17 and PW-18 deposed that on 10.01.2008 at about 8 pm when they were going in their vehicle TVS 50 near Kavanur Pillayar Koil, the deceased and his friends were standing there. The deceased outraged their molesty and the appellants pulled down them. They fell down and immediately they ran towards traffic police and informed the same and after seeing the police, the deceased and his friends ran away. Therefore the deceased and his friends got scared by the police and while running, the deceased fell down in to temple tank and died due to drowning. Therefore the appellants, never instigated him to commit suicide. 6. Further the Learned Counsel for the appellant contend that the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, deposed that the death was due to drowning and categorically deposed that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. Therefore he prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 7. Per contra the Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that it is on account of the fact that the accused chased the deceased and they attacked him, the deceased was forced to commit suicide by jumping into the temple tank. It is clear from the evidence PW-1 and PW-2 that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further their evidence is also supported by the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9. It is clear from the evidence PW-1 and PW-2 that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further their evidence is also supported by the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9. He further submitted that the ingredients of the Sections 147 I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. have been attached against the appellants and the death was caused on account of the act committed by the appellants and the deceased himself committed suicide. Hence, he submitted that there is a justification in the conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 8. This Court has considered the rival submission and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned judgment. The following points arise for consideration:- 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the deceased committed suicide due to the abetment of the appellants as they chased him to attack? 2. If so, the conviction and the sentence are liable to be interfered with? 9. On 10.01.2008 at about 9.30 pm the appellants were chasing the deceased and also attacked with cricket bat, iron rod and wooden log. The diseased only to escape from the clutches of appellants, he jumped into temple tank. He was influenced with alcohol and got drowned into water and died. According to PW-1 and 2 the deceased was beaten by the accused and they pushed him in to temple tank. Therefore the accused also searched for him in and around the temple tank and they did not find him. PW-1 and 2 also searched for him in the temple tank and they did not also find out him. As per their evidence, if at all the deceased was beaten by the accused and was missing thereafter, they did not choose to lodge any complaint against the accused, though they know very well about all the accused persons. Further they did not even whispered about their missing son on the enquiry conducted by the police related to the Crime No. 11 of 2008 against the deceased and his friends on the complaint of PW-17 and PW-18 with the allegations of outraging their molesty. Therefore, there is nothing to attract the offence under Sections 306 I.P.C. against the accused. If at all their case is true, some other offence would be attracted against the accused and not the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 10. Therefore, there is nothing to attract the offence under Sections 306 I.P.C. against the accused. If at all their case is true, some other offence would be attracted against the accused and not the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 10. PW-1 and PW-2 categorically deposed that the accused persons had beaten the deceased with cricket bat, iron rod and wooden log. Whereas the postmortem doctor- PW-14 deposed that no external injuries were found and no other injuries on the body of the diseased. Further he deposed that no contusion and swelling wound on the deceased body. The deceased died only due to drowning namely his breath was obstructed by water entered into his wind pipe. Therefore they did not support the case of the prosecution and failed to prove the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused. 11. Even from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, no allegation of instigation or abetment by the accused on the deceased is made out. Section 306 of I.P.C. reads as follows:- “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.” 12. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the appellants relied the judgment reported in 2010 (1) LW (Crl.) 680, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 15 to 21 is as follows: 15. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 . A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered your are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of instigation. Para 20 reads 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. Para 20 reads 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. 16. In State of West Bengal v. Original Jaiswal & Another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 , this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. It it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and Sch 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 offense of suicide should be found guilty. 17. The court in Ramesh Kumar's case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. 18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individually differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. Human sensitivity of each individually differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The 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 at 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. 20. 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. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ration of the cases decided by this 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 offense. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this also must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 13. Further he would rely upon judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 , M. Mohan Vs. State wherein it has been held in praragraphs 43 to 46 is as follows: 43. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : AIR 1994 SC 1418 , this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for he purpose of finding 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 hyper-sensitive 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 offense of suicide should be found guilty. 44. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605 , had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The 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. 45. 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. 46. The intention of the Legislature and the ration of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict 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 been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. 14. In the light of the said legal position, the Trial Court was not justified the conviction of appellants under Section 306 I.P.C. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt against the accused. 15. 14. In the light of the said legal position, the Trial Court was not justified the conviction of appellants under Section 306 I.P.C. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt against the accused. 15. In so far as the conviction under Section 147 I.P.C. is concerned, no violence is used by the accused and there is no unlawful assembly for the accused to attract the ingredients under Section 147 of I.P.C. The relevant portion of evidence of PW-1 as reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx 16. Therefore it is seen from the above that the deceased and his friends in order to escape from the clutches of police in relation to the case of molested the PW-17 and PW-18, they were running and the deceased fell down in the temple tank and others escaped. Therefore, there is no unlawful assembly or the accused did not involve in any violence. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 147 of IPC against the accused. 17. On the careful scrutiny of the testimonies of prosecution witness, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 147 and 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence of the accused for the offences under Section 147 and 306 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed in C. No. 23 of 2011 on the file of the District Sessions Court, Thiruvarur, is hereby set aside. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail Bonds, if any executed shall stand canceled.