JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. These three criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.08 of 2009. Hence, these three criminal appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 3. By the said judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2017, the appellants namely Sangita Singh, Jeetu Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Timal Singh and Rana Pratap Singh have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine and the appellants namely Lalpati Devi and Rozi Kumari have also been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code but were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine. 4. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the written report, in brief is that the appellant namely Sangita Singh is the daughter-in-law of the informant and the deceased Jayendra Singh was the son of the informant. It is alleged that the appellant Sangita Singh who is the wife of other son of informant namely Bihari Singh, always used to mentally torture the deceased Jayendra Singh. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sangita Singh along with co-accused persons including all the appellants and others namely Urmila, Gorelal Paswan, Tinku Paswan, Bhola Paswan, Dharmendra @ Timal Singh, Jeetu Singh, Rozi Singh, Lalpati Devi, Pinki Kumari and Jyoti Kumari led by the appellant Rana Prasad Singh used to threaten the deceased Jayendra Singh to kill him. It is also alleged that all the accused persons of the case used to attempt to humiliate and insult the informant and on being annoyed and being threatened by the acts of cruelty of the accused persons, the deceased Jayendra Singh committed suicide by hanging himself in his room. On the basis of the written report of the informant police registered Jharia (Tisra) (Alkadih) P.S. Case No.233 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No.2677 of 2007 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. 5. On the basis of the written report of the informant police registered Jharia (Tisra) (Alkadih) P.S. Case No.233 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No.2677 of 2007 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of session charges for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the appellant-accused persons of the case and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined eleven witnesses including the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and the investigating officer of the case. Out of whom P.W.1- Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W.4- Vijay Kumar Paswan and P.W.9- Bhola Sao were declared hostile. P.W.5- Rajendra Ram was only tendered for cross-examination. 7. P.W.2- Smt. Sumitra Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased Jayendra Singh was her youngest son. In the month of July 2007 at 6:00 am, she saw that Jayendra Singh has hung himself. As the accused persons used to threaten him hence, he committed suicide. In her cross-examination she has stated that Jayendra Singh has read up to B.A. She has further stated that Jayendra Singh had written a letter and police seized the said letter. On being identified by P.W.2, the said letter has been marked as Ext. A. She has also stated that her eldest son Bihari Singh, along with his son Sonu and daughter also committed suicide prior to the suicide of Jayendra Singh. 8. P.W.3- Ramdeep Singh is the father of the deceased and informant of this case. He has stated that on 07.07.07 at 5:45 a.m., P.W.2- Smt. Sumitra Devi intimated him that Jayendra Singh has committed suicide. He further stated that the appellant Sangita Devi along with co-accused persons used to come to the house of P.W.3 and used to torture Jayendra Singh by treating him with cruelty. On being proved by P.W.3, the written report has been marked as Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that 7/8 days prior to the occurrence, there was no quarrel between the P.W.3 or any other member of his family with his daughter-in-law. On being proved by P.W.3, the written report has been marked as Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that 7/8 days prior to the occurrence, there was no quarrel between the P.W.3 or any other member of his family with his daughter-in-law. He has admitted that police arrested the appellant Sangita Singh from Jairampur hospital while she was being administered saline. The police also seized one suicidal note. He has also stated that Sangita used to live in her paternal house. 9. P.W.6- Ramadhar Singh has only stated that at about 7/8 a.m., he came to know that Jayendra Singh has committed suicide. Police came and brought down the dead body of Jayendra and seized the rope with which the dead body of Jayendra was hanging. On being proved by him, the seizure list has been marked as Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge about the reasons for the occurrence. 10. P.W.7- Ranjeet Singh has also stated that Jayendra committed suicide by hanging and he also saw the dead body. He does not know why Jayendra hung himself. In his cross-examination he has stated that all the members of the family were having cordial relationship with the deceased. 11. P.W.8- Santosh Kumar Singh is also a seizure witness and on being proved by him his signature on the seizure list has been marked as Ext. 2/1. In his cross-examination he has stated that he signed on a blank sheet of paper. He does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 12. P.W.10- Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jayendra Singh on 07.07.07 at 1.05 p.m. and found the following injuries:- (i) Ligature mark 1/3 inch wide found between chin and larynx running obliquely backwards and upwards along the line of mandible on both sides of neck with an irregular impression of knot over right mastoid. The mark found dark brown, hard, leathery and parchment like with pattern of strands of rope and abrasion over the margin. Dried stains of saliva found over cloths over left upper chest along with blood stains. No other external wound found. On dissection, subcutaneous tissues beneath the ligature mark found dry, white, glistening. No other abnormality was found in soft tissue of neck. Mucous membrane of trachea found congested and full of froth. Dried stains of saliva found over cloths over left upper chest along with blood stains. No other external wound found. On dissection, subcutaneous tissues beneath the ligature mark found dry, white, glistening. No other abnormality was found in soft tissue of neck. Mucous membrane of trachea found congested and full of froth. Both lungs found congested with froth exuding out on cut section. Right ventricle of heart was found full of dark bluish fluid blood and left was empty. Stomach contained 150 c.c. of pasty food with no particular smell. Bladder found empty and all other internal organs found congested. Skull found normal, brain and meninges found congested. Time elapsed since death- 18 hours plus minus 3 hours. He opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. He also stated that the postmortem report was the official carbon copy which was in his pen and signature and on being proved by him, the same has been marked as Ext.3 and inquest report and the challan of the dead body has been marked as Ext. 4 and 4/1 (with objection). In his cross-examination he has stated that the dead body was not identified by any of the relatives of the deceased. 13. P.W.11- Shiv Kumar Singh is the investigating officer of this case. He has stated about the investigation done by him in the case. He further stated about recording of the statement of the witnesses. He described the place of occurrence with its boundaries including the manner in which the dead body of the deceased was hanging. He also seized one plastic rope of 4½ feet length. He arrested some of the accused persons of the case and rest of the accused persons surrendered in the court. He did not record the statement of any of the accused persons and after completion of his investigation; he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he stated that he also seized one suicide note wherein it was mentioned that the deceased was voluntarily committing suicide and there is no reason for committing suicide and only the deceased will be responsible for his death and none of his family members or relatives be harassed. In his suicidal note, it was also mentioned that the appellant Sangita Singh is his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and she should not be given any trouble. In his suicidal note, it was also mentioned that the appellant Sangita Singh is his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and she should not be given any trouble. P.W.11- Shiv Kumar Singh seized the suicide note from the room where the deceased committed suicide and it was the suicidal note of the deceased only. 14. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded wherein the accused persons denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against them and pleaded innocence. 15. From the side of defence, only one witness namely Raju Singh was examined as D.W.1. He has stated that the mental condition of Jayendra Singh was not proper after the death of his elder brother, his nephew and niece. At the time of occurrence, the appellant Sangita Singh was in her paternal house. None of the accused persons were having any role in committing the suicide of Jayendra Singh. At the time of occurrence, Rana Pratap Singh was on his duty in R.P.F. at Danapur. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he does not have any document to show that the mental condition of Jayendra was not proper nor he has any idea about any treatment being taken by Jayendra Singh. 16. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as already indicated above. 17. Mr. Anil Kumar learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is absolutely no evidence in the record to substantiate the allegations made in the written report that the appellants threatened and treated the deceased with cruelty and the evidence in the record is insufficient to constitute any of the ingredients of abetment as envisaged in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to put forth any evidence for the reason of commission of suicide by the deceased. It is also submitted that the witnesses of the prosecution themselves being the P.W.2- Smt. Sumitra Devi, P.W.3- Ramdeep Singh and P.W.11- Shiv Kumar Singh have categorically stated about the fact that the deceased left a suicide note which has been marked as Ext. A, establishes that the appellants are in no way or manner responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased. A, establishes that the appellants are in no way or manner responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased. There is absolutely no doubt about the contents of the Ext. A. It is submitted that in this backdrop, the learned court below erred in ignoring the Ext. A and convicting the accused-appellant persons. Hence, it is submitted that the appellants be acquitted of the charges and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside. 18. Learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the P.W.2- Smt. Sumitra Devi and P.W.3- Ramdeep Singh, shows that the appellants are instrumental in instigating the suicide committed by the deceased Jayendra Singh and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, these appeals being without any merit, be dismissed. 19. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the evidence on record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Versus State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 , in the facts and circumstances of that case where the deceased left a suicide note that the accused was responsible for his death held as under in paragraph 12 :- “12. … … … Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.” (Emphasis Supplied) 21. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.(1995 Supp(3) SCC 438) in the facts and circumstances of that case where the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased “to go and die”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased “to go and die” were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 22. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 731) the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which read as under: “My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the definition of “abetment” under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased and also held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 23. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618 in the facts and circumstances of that case where the charge was framed and the conviction was for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which the deceased had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set herself on fire, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as 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 differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences 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.” 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 which was also followed in the case of Praveen Pradhan Versus State of Uttaranchal reported in 2012 (9) SCC 734 interpreted the word ‘instigation’ appearing in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, in paragraphs – 16 and 17 as under :- “16. … instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. … 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the 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’ … to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts….” 25. Keeping in view the requirements of law as discussed above, this court on scrutiny of the evidence in the record found that there is absolutely no evidence in the record to show the details of the ingredients of the instigation, if any, committed by any of the appellants. The P.W.3 as already indicated above stated that 7/8 days prior to the occurrence, there was no quarrel between the P.W.3 or any other member of his family with his daughter-in-law (meaning thereby the accused Sangita Singh). P.W.3 has admitted that police arrested the appellant Sangita Singh from Jairampur hospital while she was being administered saline. He has also stated that Sangita used to live in her paternal house, thereby ruling out any proximity, between the acts of omission or commission, if any, done by Sangita or for that matter any of the accused-appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased. P.W.7 has stated that all the members of the family were having cordial relationship with the deceased, which also creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. The evidence in respect of manner of instigation by the accused persons to the deceased is vague and miserably falls short from constituting the offence punishable under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence in respect of manner of instigation by the accused persons to the deceased is vague and miserably falls short from constituting the offence punishable under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further Ext. A which is the suicide note left by the deceased wherein it was inter alia mentioned that the deceased was voluntarily committing suicide and there was no reason for his committing suicide and only the deceased will be responsible for his death and none of his family members or relatives be harassed and further it was also mentioned therein that the appellant Sangita Singh is his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and she should not be given any trouble, falsifies the case of prosecution. There is no material in the record to discard or disbelieve the contents of the Exhibit-A. 26. Under such circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record do not establish the ingredients of abetment and is insufficient to bring home charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against any of the accused-appellants and this is a fit case where the accused persons be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I acquit the appellants namely Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Timal Singh, Rana Pratap Singh, Jeetu Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh, Sangita Singh, Lalpati Devi and Rozi Kumari @ Rosy Singh @ Rosy Kumari of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them as mentioned above is set aside. The appellants named above are on bail. In view of their acquittal, they are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. 27. Let the lower court records be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the learned court below forthwith. 28. In the result, these appeals stand allowed.