ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.46/2021, whereby charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC has been framed against the applicant herein. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 15.11.2018 at about 04:00 PM, the deceased namely Lata Bai Nishad, committed suicide by hanging herself in a room. During the course of investigation, it has been stated by mother of the deceased that the present applicant used to harass her, therefore, the deceased committed suicide. On such complaint, the police registered the F.I.R. against the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 3. Further case of the prosecution, is that the present applicant is uncle-in-law of the deceased. Marriage between the deceased and nephew of the applicant namely Sevak Nishad was solemnized in the month of March, 2018 and on the date of incident, deceased worked at food-stall of her father-in-law and thereafter, she returned back to home, where she committed suicide. The allegation made by Smt. Jaina Bai, mother of the deceased, against the present applicant is that the applicant used to taunt her by saying that the deceased was inauspicious to the family and after her marriage, the applicant's sister-in-law namely Smt. Kirti Bai has died. After filing of the charge sheet against the applicant herein, the learned trial Court, on the basis of material available on record, framed charge for the offence as stated above against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant was not residing along with the family of the deceased. He is uncle-in-law of the deceased and he was residing at Ward No. 50, Mohad Road Singdai, Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, whereas the deceased and her family were residing in the same locality, but in a different house. He would further submit that for framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the allegation must fulfill the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. He would also submit that if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, the offence of ‘abetment of suicide’ as punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not made out as there was no abetment. He would also submit that if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, the offence of ‘abetment of suicide’ as punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not made out as there was no abetment. He would further submit that the statement of Jaina Bai (mother of deceased), Chuneshwari Nishad (sister of deceased), Govinda Yadav (independent witness), Dilharan Nishad (father of deceased) and Navin Nishad (younger brother of deceased) have been recorded, but they have not made any allegation with regard to abetment. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is sufficient material for recording conviction against the present applicant. He would further submit that ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are available; therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed by the applicant along with the criminal revision with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the records reflects that the nephew of the present applicant namely Sevak Nishad was married to the deceased in the month of March, 2018 and the deceased used to work in the food-stall of her father-in-law. On the date of incident, she came back home from food-stall and thereafter, committed suicide. Mother of the deceased has made allegation to the effect that the applicant used to taunt her by saying that the deceased was inauspicious to their family and after her marriage, he lost his sister-in-law. 8. For framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the requirement is presence of the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, which deals with abetment. Section 107 of the IPC is reproduced herein below:- ‘107. 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.’ Section 306 of the IPC reads thus:- “306. ? Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.’ Section 306 of the IPC 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. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. held that:- 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. 21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [ (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] 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 the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. 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 of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 10. 10. In case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 , there was a dispute between one Saurav Mahajan, who was a final year student of Law Department and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same class with regard to the theft of a mobile phone. This came to the notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department who asked both the students to submit their versions of the incident in writing. The deceased and Harminder gave their versions and, thereafter, M.D.Singh forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. An inquiry was conducted on 13th October 2003 by the Security Officer of the University Shri S.S. Chheena. During the course of inquiry, on 17th October 2003, Saurav Mahajan committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. A suicide note was seized from the pocket of the deceased. On the complaint of father of the deceased, an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. was registered against Harminder Singh. During the course of trial, S.S. Chheena was also impleaded as accused. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge, S.S. Chheena approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere. Being aggrieved thereby, said S.S. Chheena approached the Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed thus: "24. 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 words "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 other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. 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. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio 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 offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside." 11. In the case of State of Kerala and others vs S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, (2015) 9 SCC 639 , the Chief Investigating Officer had committed suicide pending investigation in a murder case. In the suicide note, it was alleged that two of his subordinates were responsible for his situation. There were some allegations against one Advocate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The First Information Report came to be lodged against the subordinate officers. They filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Kerala High Court quashed the First Information Report. Being aggrieved thereby, the State went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. There were some allegations against one Advocate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The First Information Report came to be lodged against the subordinate officers. They filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Kerala High Court quashed the First Information Report. Being aggrieved thereby, the State went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. While dismissing the appeal, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus : "12. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reasons, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate. 13. In Netai Dutta [ (2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 IPC and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this: (SCC p. 661, paras 6-7) “6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. 7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.” 12. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, observed in paras 28, 29 and 30 thus - 28. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 has observed as under:— “13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as under:— “306. Abetment of suicide. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC 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 for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a modern latin word ‘suicidium’, ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. 15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:— “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.” 29. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which are as under:— “The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.” 30. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed as under:— “16. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed as under:— “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 13. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts of the present case, it appears that ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are missing. Further; there is no material to establish the fact of instigation, intentional aid or any conspiracy whatsoever having been extended by the applicant herein to the deceased to commit suicide. 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. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without there being a positive act on the part of the applicant herein to instigate or aid in committing suicide, charge so framed cannot be sustained. 14. From the above discussion, it is apparent that law as to what the requirements are to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is well crystallized in the above referred authorities. Without there being a positive act on the part of the applicant herein to instigate or aid in committing suicide, charge so framed cannot be sustained. 14. From the above discussion, it is apparent that law as to what the requirements are to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is well crystallized in the above referred authorities. In the present case, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses and the contents of the F.I.R, wherein there is only allegation against the applicant, who is uncle-in-law of the deceased, that he used to taunt the deceased by saying she was inauspicious to the family, therefore, she committed suicide and the applicant has been arrayed as accused. The possibility of that something might have happened between the deceased and the applicant which led the deceased to take such an extreme step, cannot be ruled out, and thus, in such a scenario the charge for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC cannot be sustained against the applicant. 15. Consequently, in light of the above, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing charge against the applicant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. The applicant is discharged from the charge framed against him under Section 306 of IPC.