JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This Government Appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been proposed by State of U.P. against Prem Kumari @ Gayatri and four others against judgment of acquittal dated 12.3.2019 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba, in S.T. No. 04 of 2009, State of U.P. Vs. Prem Kumari @ Gayatri and others, u/s 306 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 2341 of 2008, P.S. Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba, upon information lodged by Dr. Narendra Kumar Vaidhya about suicide by three persons in their house because of abetment caused by accused persons, who got a false case registered regarding cruelty with regard to demand of dowry for which deceased persons were enlarged on bail after being in jail for 2-3 days. They were mentally tortured and were harassed by accused persons, which compelled deceased persons for committing suicide and it was in close proximity of the date on which they were to appear before the trial court at Banda and this was proved by informant-PW1 Dr. Narendra Kumar Vaidhya, another witness PW2 Smt. Divya Vaidhya, PW6- Ram Kumar Soni, registration of case crime number was formally proved by PW7- Constable Kushalpal Singh. This testimony was having corroboration by medical evidence of PW3- Dr. D.K. Sullerey, who had conducted autopsy examination on persons of deceased Pramod Soni, Smt. Asha @ Sarman and Amod. PW4-Constable Vinod Kumar Nigam, secondary evidence of S.I. Om Prakash Sharma and HCP Raghuvanshi Rathore. But the trial court passed judgment of acquittal. Hence, this was a result of perversity, wherein relevant and admissible evidence, produced by prosecution, were not taken into consideration. Hence this application with a prayer for grant of leave to appeal. 2. Perusal of impugned judgment and record reveals that criminal machinery was put into motion by way of registration of Case Crime under section 306 I.P.C. by way of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1) lodged by Dr. Narendra Kumar Vaidya with this contention that owing to registration of a false case of cruelty with regard to demand of dowry under conspiracy and connivance of accused persons Prem Kumari @ Gayatri, Dilip Soni, Phoolwati @ Kalawati, Dayawati and Bhola Prasad @ Kamta Prasad, the deceased persons were put behind bar and were granted bail resulting mental torture of them and thereby they after bolting door from inside took some poisonous substance and died. There was recovery of suicidal note from the place of occurrence. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet. But in the trial neither suicidal notes were proved nor were admissible because of lack of their proof. Though death by consuming some poisonous substance after bolting door from inside by deceased persons was undisputed fact. Previous registration of a case regarding offence of cruelty with regard to demand of dowry was also undisputed fact. But merely because of registration of this case crime number or pendency of case, no prudent men will commit suicide. Moreso, for an offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. the condition precedent is abetment because this offence itself is for 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 i.e. abetment for attempting to commit suicide is a condition precedent. 3. It has been held that once offence of abetment of committing suicide is clearly made out against accused, the offence punishable under section 306 I.P.C. shall be made out. The basic constituents of an offence punishable under section 306 I.P.C. are suicidal death and abetment thereof as has been propounded by Apex Court in Sangarabonia Sreenu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214 . 4. To attract ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. In order to convict a person under section 306 I.P.C. there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act, which lead 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. This has been propounded in M. Mohan Vs. State, (2011) AIR SC 1238. 5. In the present case no such cogent evidence is there. Neither informant-PW1 nor PW2 was present at the place of occurrence either on the date of the occurrence or in close proximity of time of occurrence. Rather they received information of this untoward happening of bolting door from inside and consuming some poisonous substance resulting death of those persons. 5. In the present case no such cogent evidence is there. Neither informant-PW1 nor PW2 was present at the place of occurrence either on the date of the occurrence or in close proximity of time of occurrence. Rather they received information of this untoward happening of bolting door from inside and consuming some poisonous substance resulting death of those persons. It was held to be suicide owing to lodging of case of cruelty with regard to demand of dowry by accused persons and deceased persons being behind bar for two to three days in above case. This was presumption of informant and other witnesses of fact. The alleged suicidal notes were neither proved nor were produced in original before the trial Judge, hence not admissible. 6. The active participation for commission of offence of abetment given u/s 107 I.P.C. was not there. Section 107 of I.P.C. provides abetment of a thing-- a person abets the doing of a thing, who-- 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 i.e. active instigation or entering in conspiracy or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission are conditions precedent for constituting offence of abetment. But in the present case no such ingredients were either proved or placed on record before trial Judge. As a result the judgment of acquittal was passed. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment requiring a ground for grant of leave for this appeal. 7. Accordingly, this prayer is rejected.