JUDGMENT : 1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in both the criminal revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The instant revisions have been preferred by the applicants against the impugned order dated 08/04/2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.21/2019, whereby the Trial Court has framed charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the case of prosecution, on Mahaveer Chourdiya (deceased) committed suicide by jumping before the train on 10/02/2018. It is alleged that the deceased was a finance broker. During the financial transaction and day-to-day affair it led to some financial liability, as such the applicants/accused Ashok Lohia and Vinod Lohia (applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 respectively in Cr.R.No.546/2019) started pressuring the deceased to returned the amount. Threat was continuously extended that image of the deceased would be tarnished in the society as also family members would be subjected to some attack and family members would be maligned. Frequency of such demand aggravated, eventually the deceased committed suicide. Before committing suicide, the deceased had written a suicidal note (Annexure P2) and also sent a Whatsapp audio clip on social media wherein the deceased had made allegations against the present applicants/accused. On the basis of the above information, the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 13/02/2018. After completion of the investigation, police filed a chargesheet before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon from where the matter being triable by the Court of Sessions committed to the learned Trial Court. Vide impugned order dated 08/04/2019, the Trial Court framed the charge as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, Cr.R.No.546/2019 has been preferred by the applicants namely Ashok Lohia and Vinod Lohia and Cr.R.No.555/2019 has been preferred by applicant Kamal Kishore. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in both the cases submitted that in the entire charge-sheet there is no material available to frame charge against the applicants/accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the learned Sessions Judge has committed manifest illegality in framing the charge against the applicants/accused. It is further submitted by them that there is no proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the applicants/accused with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. It is further submitted by them that there is no proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the applicants/accused with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. They further submitted that even if the evidence on record is taken as it is, the only thing that is established is that the deceased had borrowed money from the applicants/accused and he was under pressure for repayment of loan amount as a result of which the deceased was on frustration and decided to commit suicide for which the applicants/accused cannot be held guilty. On bare perusal of the entire charge-sheet, no case under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and no ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants/accused. It is further submitted that on a plain reading of the suicidal note of the deceased and Whatsapp audio clip reflects that the deceased was in great stress. The suicidal note as well as the Whatsapp audio clip does not reflect any ingredients to frame the case against the applicants/accused for framing the charge under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel in AIR 1972 SC 545 (Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra); 2010 CRI. L.J 2110 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh); (2017) 1 SCC 433 (Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab); (2019) 3 SCC 315 (M. Arjunan v. State Represented by its Inspector of Police. Reliance has also been place on some of the judgments passed by this Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is sufficient material available on record for presuming that the applicants/accused have committed the offence and as such there is no illegality in the order impugned framing charge against the applicants/accused warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that there is sufficient material available on record for presuming that the applicants/accused have committed the offence and as such there is no illegality in the order impugned framing charge against the applicants/accused warranting interference by this Court. It is further submitted that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is to consider whether there is any prima facie case made out against the accused or not and at that stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents relied on by the prosecution only with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or not. It is further submitted that from the material available on record particularly the suicidal note of the deceased as well as the transcription of Whatsapp audio clip message, prima facie, it appears that due to pressure created by the applicants/accused, the deceased committed suicide. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including the material available carefully. 7. The question in the present case is whether on considering the entire available material to be correct a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants/accused or not? 8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which run 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. 07. 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 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. Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 9. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for abetment, which runs as follows : “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation.-An act of offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.” 10. As per the definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients : “(i) instigating a person for doing of a thing, or (ii) engaging in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or (iii) intentionally aiding the doing of that thing.” 11. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word “instigate” means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. 12. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word “instigate” means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. 12. As Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three ingredients as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal commission of the suicide by the deceased. 13. In (2001) 9 SCC 618 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh), it has been observed by the Supreme Court 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. 21. 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 , 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 purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her 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.” 14. Further, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) that : “18. 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. 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 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 straightjacket 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. 15. 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. 15. In (2011) 3 SCC 626 (M. Mohan v. State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police), the Supreme Court, by the following observation, has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence : “45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 16. In 2015 AIR SCW 4814 (State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair), the Supreme Court has observed as under : “13. 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 hereinbefore. 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 reason, 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. It also baffles reason, 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. 18. Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and, in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in law that where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings. [See V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and others, (2010) 10 SCC 361 ]” 17. In the case of Gurucharan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment, Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 18. In the case of M. Arjunan (supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under : 7. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment, Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 18. In the case of M. Arjunan (supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under : 7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC 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 the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 19. In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the present case are to be examined. 20. It is not in dispute that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping before the train on 10/02/2018. There is also no dispute on the point that, as per case of the prosecution itself, the deceased was a finance broker and he used to borrow money from the applicants/accused on interest and later on he used to lend the same money to different persons on interest. Further, case of the prosecution is that the applicants/accused had lend money to the deceased and therefore, applicants/accused used to demand there money back and continuously create pressure on him for the same. Due to this, the deceased committed suicide. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., none of the witnesses has disclosed that the applicants/accused used to create pressure or threaten the deceased or demanded money. Prosecution has also not collected any documentary evidence which shows what amount of transaction of money had been taken between the applicants/accused and the deceased and on which terms and conditions. 21. The case of the prosecution is mainly based upon the suicidal note of the deceased and audio clip which was sent by the deceased through Whatsapp. Prosecution has also not collected any documentary evidence which shows what amount of transaction of money had been taken between the applicants/accused and the deceased and on which terms and conditions. 21. The case of the prosecution is mainly based upon the suicidal note of the deceased and audio clip which was sent by the deceased through Whatsapp. The alleged suicidal note written by the deceased reads as under : eSa egkohj pkSjfM+;k vkt eSa vkRegR;kk djus tk jgk gwa] bldk ftEesnkj /kuy{eh isij ehy ds ekfyd fouksn yksfg;k vkSj muds HkkbZ jk;iqj fuoklh vk'kksd yksfg;k gSA bUgksus esjs ikl C;kt es iSlk pykrs Fks] mudk iSLkk ikVhZ esa Mwc x;k rks oks esjs ls ys fy;s 70 ls 75 djksM+ #i;s gS] ;s iSlk nwljs yksxksa ls ykdj ns fn;k gwaA vkSj jde C;kt Hkh esjs ls fy;s gS] bl dkj.k ls eSa dtsZ esa gks x;k gwaA eSa cktkj ls iSlk mBkdj QthZ fpVBh cuk;k bu nksuksa Hkkb;ksa dks eSaus psd fn;k gwa] dqN QthZ fpVBh bu nksuksa Hkkb;ksa dks Hkh fn;k gwa] vc ;s eq>s rax dj dj jgs gSa] fd gekjk iSLkk ugha fn;k rks ge rq>s rsjs ifjokj dks ekj nsaxsa o cnuke dj nsaxsA rsjk HkkbZ tt gS mldks Hkh cnuke dj nsaxs] gekjh igqap mij rd gS eSa bl Mj ls budksa #i;s nsrk bl dkj.k esjs mij cgqr dtkZ gks x;k gS] tks eSa NwVk ugha ik jgk gwa blfy;s eSa vkRegR;k dj jgk gwa] ;s nksuksa HkkbZ eq>s vkSj esjs NksVs HkkbZ euh"k dks ijs'kku dj jgs gSA esjs Hkkb;ksa dks bl ckjs eas dqN irk ugha gS eSa muls ekQh ekax jgk gwa vkSj O;kikfj;ksa ls Hkh ekQh ekax jgk gwa] dqN O;kikjh Hkkb;ksa ds ikl QthZ fpVBh] dqN iSLkk vkSj lkeku cspuk gksxkA egkohj pkSjfM+;k 22. In the suicidal note, the deceased had mentioned the name of applicants/accused namely Vinod Lohia and Ashok Lohia only. Name of other applicant/accused i.e. Kamal Kishore is not mentioned in the suicidal note of the deceased but mentioned in the whatsapp audio clip. 23. From perusal of suicidal note of the deceased it appears that only allegation against the applicants/accused namely Ashok Lohia and Vinod Lohia has been made that they used to harass the deceased for demand of their money from him. 23. From perusal of suicidal note of the deceased it appears that only allegation against the applicants/accused namely Ashok Lohia and Vinod Lohia has been made that they used to harass the deceased for demand of their money from him. In his suicidal note, the deceased himself had written that he had borrowed money from some other persons also and he was on huge debt. He has further written that he had issued some forged letters to applicants/accused Ashok Lohia and Vinod Lohia. He was in huge debt and he was unable to pay the same due to which he had committed suicide. 24. In the transcription of Whatsapp audio clip prepared by the police, the deceased has mentioned that he was not able to returned the amount of the businessmen as the inflow of the money was stopped due to demonetization and G.S.T. He was not able to repay the amounts to the businessmen from whom he had taken and applicants/accused were continuously demanding their money back from the deceased. It is further mentioned that applicants/accused were threatening the deceased that they would defame him and his family members. Applicants/accused used to make several phone calls to the deceased for demand of money. It is further mentioned that deceased was not able to return the money to whom he had taken from, and therefore, he was feeling guilty. 25. On perusal of the suicide note of the deceased and Whatsapp audio clip, it is clear that the deceased had taken money from the market and he was not able to repay the same due to which he was on frustration and was feeling guilty. It is also clear that deceased had borrowed money from the applicants/accused and he was not able to repay to them and therefore, demand was made continuously for the same from the applicants/accused. Even if it is accepted that the applicants/accused were demanding their money back from the deceased, there is no material available on record to establish that the applicants/accused were continuously torturing and harassing the deceased physically or mentally. Any of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above, does not constitute the offence alleged against the applicants/accused. 26. Any of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above, does not constitute the offence alleged against the applicants/accused. 26. In the opinion of this Court, on considering the entire available material to be correct, no prima facie case for framing of charge against the applicants/accused of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as there is no nexus or proximity with the conduct and behaviour of the applicants/accused with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. 27. Consequently, the revisions are allowed. The impugned order dated 08/04/2019 framing charge against the applicants/accused under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside and the applicants/accused are accordingly discharged.