JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2003 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Xth, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 256 of 2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as per the Fardbayan dated 23.01.2001, in brief is that marriage of Rita Devi, daughter of the informant, was solemnized with the appellant four years ago from the date the fardbayan was lodged as per Hindu rituals and after marriage the informant had to give monthly maintenance to her daughter as his son-in-law was unemployed. It was further alleged that though the relation between his daughter with his son-in-law was smooth but her daughter had a strained relationship with her mother-in-law. As per the informant, on 23.01.2001, about 1 p.m. his son-in-law came to his quarter and informed him that Rita Devi had hanged herself. The informant, along with his wife went to find the body of her daughter lying on the ground and later on they came to know that his son-in-law and his mother had killed Rita Devi. Alleged cause of death was that informant stopped giving maintenance and provisions for about two months and his son-in-law always told him that as he has not received dowry, the informant have to maintain them otherwise his daughter would be killed. On the basis of the Fardbayan, a police case was lodged. 4. At the outset, Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact and evidence on the record that it was a pure case of suicide due to poverty. There is no specific demand of dowry and allegation of torture in connection with the deceased against the appellant. Mother of the deceased (PW-1) in Para -7 has specifically deposed that her daughter has informed her two months prior to the incident that if maintenance is not given then they would die of poverty. This statement of the mother is very relevant to show that the appellant is innocent. Mother of the deceased (PW-1) in Para -7 has specifically deposed that her daughter has informed her two months prior to the incident that if maintenance is not given then they would die of poverty. This statement of the mother is very relevant to show that the appellant is innocent. Learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellant is unemployed which also came in the evidence and he was separated by his mother and he was suffering from great hardship and starvation. From the entire deposition of the witnesses there is not even an iota of evidence against the appellant that he abetted the suicide. Learned court below has very rightly, after appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that there is no demand of dowry and also there is no evidence by any witness that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, including the deposition of the informant-PW-4, who is the father of the victim and also the deposition of the mother of the victim, who is PW-1, it transpires that the victim Rita Devi was married with appellant Radhe Shyam Paswan sometime in the year 1997-98 according to Hindu rituals. It further transpires that due to non-employment of the appellant who is the husband of the victim-Rita Devi, the father of the victim used to give monthly maintenance to his daughter and son-in-law. From the prosecution case it further transpires that the relation of the victim and the appellant was smooth but their life was strained due to non-employment. It further transpires from the deposition of the mother that there was no act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant for dowry and it was due to non-employment of the appellant husband that the in-laws used to provide monthly maintenance. However, when it was stopped the deceased told her mother that she would die of starvation. It further transpires from the deposition of the mother that there was no act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant for dowry and it was due to non-employment of the appellant husband that the in-laws used to provide monthly maintenance. However, when it was stopped the deceased told her mother that she would die of starvation. It further transpires from the evidence of brother of the victim, who is PW-3, that both husband and wife used to come to the in-laws place for taking maintenance, however, the same was stopped about couple of months before the incident. At this stage it is relevant to refer the finding of the learned trial court. For brevity relevant portion of paragraph 15 and 16 are quoted herein-below: “15...........Here in the present case there is a lacking of the ingredients, and demanding for the maintenance in the hard day of starvation is not falling within the definition of dowry and hence there is no application of u/s 304 (B) I.P.C. hence resumption u/s 113(B) of evidence Act is not applicable” 16..............but it is crystal clear from the circumstances put forwarded by the prosecution that she was subjected with cruelty and there was quarelling and just before two months from the death of the victim Rita Devi her parent, stopped to maintain her daughter and son-in-law, that may be a cause of annoyance leading to suicidal death of deceased Rita Devi........” From the aforesaid finding it appears that admittedly there was no cruelty by the in-laws for demand of dowry before the death and that is the reason the learned trial court has categorically held that there is no application of Section 304-B I.P.C. hence, presumption under Section 130-B of the Evidence Act is not applicable, however, the learned trial court has given its finding that just two months before the death of the victim her parents stopped to maintain their daughter and that may have caused annoyance leading to suicidal death of the deceased Rita Devi. However, subsequently, the learned trial court misdirected itself in holding that from the circumstances discussed above abetment of suicide can be easily inferred. At this stage it is relevant to quote Section 306 I.P.C. for proper appreciation of the case. “306. However, subsequently, the learned trial court misdirected itself in holding that from the circumstances discussed above abetment of suicide can be easily inferred. At this stage it is relevant to quote Section 306 I.P.C. for proper appreciation of the case. “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.” After going through the aforesaid provision of law two ingredients are required. Firstly, there must be a suicide and secondly there should be abetment in the commission of such suicide. In the instant case, as per the deposition as well as the finding of the trial court there was no demand of dowry, however, there was a categorical finding as well as admitted case that the in-laws used to give monthly maintenance but that was stopped and as per the categorical statement of mother of the victim that the victim told her that she would die of starvation, thus, the immediate cause for the death was not dowry but the financial condition of the victim and her husband after stoppage of monthly maintenance. Nowhere in the deposition it was stated that the appellant created a situation that the victim committed suicide. Though, in the instant case the victim committed suicide but it cannot be inferred that it was the husband appellant who created a situation and/or abetted the suicide of his wife. It is a peculiar case that the husband was not earning and both the husband and wife were living somehow with the help of maintenance allowance given by the in-laws. However, when the same was stopped about couple of months before the date of incident, the victim committed suicide. The learned trial court has given a perverse finding after acquitting the appellant from the charge of 304-B I.P.C. while convicting him for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. This court holds that the finding of the trial court that abetment for suicide can be easily inferred from the circumstances is misconceived so far the appellant is concerned. At best it can be said that the immediate cause for committing suicide was stoppage of monthly maintenance but that too cannot be said to be abetment on the part of in-laws. At best it can be said that the immediate cause for committing suicide was stoppage of monthly maintenance but that too cannot be said to be abetment on the part of in-laws. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law in paragraph 49, 50, 51, 54 to 58 as under: “49. Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide “whoever abets the commission of such suicide” shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years: “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.” Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V IPC, which is titled “Of Abetment.” Section 107 provides: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. 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. 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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 50. 50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgments of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107, Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56, Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62. In Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896, Mukundakam Sharma, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed: (SCC p. 712, Para 12) “12...........It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 54. In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 , the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations: (SCC p. 244, Para 458) “458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC.” 55. More recently in M. Arjunan vs. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through R. Banumathi, J. elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following observations: (SCC p. 317, Para 7) “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.” 56. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dinesh Maheshwari, J. expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms: (SCC pp. 321-322, Para 16) “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts 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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the acts 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 abovereferred, 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. 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. 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.” 57. Similarly, in Rajesh vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through L. Nageswara Rao, J. held as follows: (SCC Para 9) “9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 58. In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 417, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Hrishikesh Roy, J. held thus : (SCC pp. 206-207, Para 15) “15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.” 7. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.” 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (Supra) this court holds that the appellant is not guilty for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. inasmuch as he was nowhere involved in abetment rather his acknowledged poor economic condition may be the cause of death of the suicide and for that he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 8. Having regard to the discussion made hereinabove, the instant appeal requires interference. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2003 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Xth, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 256 of 2001 is set aside. As a result, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. 9. The appellant is directed to be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 10. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the appellant through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.