JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.329/1996 convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had abducted the deceased namely Ku. Sushma and took her to Village Bhatgawa and the father of the deceased Dharam Sai (PW-1) had gone along with the father of the Appellant to the said village and brought her back. Thereafter, the deceased disclosed that the Appellant, in a forceful manner, made physical relation with her for which, a separate trial has been conducted vide S.T. No.328/1996 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC in which, the Appellant was convicted and awarded sentence of 7 years vide judgment dated 03.07.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. It is alleged that after returning from village Bhatgawa, when the deceased was taken to lodge FIR, she had consumed poison and was hospitalized and during treatment, on the next day, she died. Merg intimation (Ex.P-2) and subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-3) have been registered. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded. In the FSL report (Ex.P-14), insecticide-Zinc Phosphate was found in the viscera and the same was collected during the postmortem of the deceased by Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (PW-8). 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present Appellant. During trial, the Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Statement of the accused/Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and in his defence, has not examined any witness. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court, vide its impugned judgment, convicted the Appellant as mentioned above. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order of conviction is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order of conviction is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. He further submits that Dharam Sai (PW-1), father of the deceased had, though the Appellant and the deceased both were in love relation, brought the deceased back from village Bhatgawa and thereafter, she took an extreme step of ending her life, therefore, there is possibility that she could have taken such a step due to pressure of her parents. 6. Pet contra, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned with utmost circumspection. 8. Dharam Sai (PW-1), the father of the deceased had stated that the Appellant had abducted his daughter and took her to village Bhatgawa, therefore, he went along with the father of the Appellant to the said village where she was found and the Appellant fled away from there. Dharam Sai (PW-1) took the deceased to Ambikapur police station where her statement has been recorded and she had also disclosed that the Appellant had, in a forceful manner, made physical relation with her. Thereafter, during the night, wife of Dharam Sai (PW-1) namely Satrangi Bai (PW-2) had informed him that the deceased told her that she had consumed poison and then she was taken to hospital and on the next day, she died. 9. Jawahar (PW-5) had given merg intimation that for treatment of poison, the deceased was hospitalized on 13.05.1996 at 7.30 a.m at District Hospital, Ambikapur where she died on 14.5.1996 at 11.30 a.m. Based on such information (Ex.P2), merg intimation has been registered. Subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-3) has been lodged that the Appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and offence under Section 306 IPC was registered against him. 10. Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (PW-8), who conducted the postmortem (Ex.P-13) on the body of the deceased on 14.05.1996 at 4.15 a.m, had proved the same and during the said examination, he preserved the viscera and the same was seized from him vide Ex.P-9 and sent for FSL examination, report of which is Ex.P-14. It has been affirmed that in the viscera, poisonous substance i.e. insecticide-Zinc Phosphate was present. 11. It has been affirmed that in the viscera, poisonous substance i.e. insecticide-Zinc Phosphate was present. 11. In the instant case, it is admitted that the father of the deceased i.e. Dharam Sai (PW-1) brought her, who was earlier in the possession of the Appellant and thereafter, when he took her to police station for registering the offence against the Appellant, in such circumstances, she had taken an extreme step of ending her life. Therefore, the only question which calls for consideration before this Court is whether in such circumstances, the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for the charge framed under Section 306 IPC. 12. Recently, in the matter of Kasi Bai & Ors vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC Onine SC 575, it was observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 306 IPC also, there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. The relevant paras i.e. 8-10 read as under:- “8. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. 9. In M. Mohan v. State [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police1, this Court has elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, and after discussing various earlier decisions has observed as under:— “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar, [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar, [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) “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.” In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn. 42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, [ (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) 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 appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive 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 offence of suicide should be found guilty. 43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. 43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [ (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] 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 straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. 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. 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.” 10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.” 13. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.” 13. In view of the aforesaid principles and also considering the evidence available on record, it appears that there is no direct evidence on record that the Appellant, in any manner, instigated the deceased to commit suicide or there was any act on his part which drove her to commit suicide, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence, which is perverse and the same is therefore, not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him under Section 306 IPC. Perusal of the order sheet shows that the Appellant was granted bail on 25.04.2003. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. Let the record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for necessary action and compliance.