ORDER 1. Present appeal is preferred under Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act to challenge the order dated 03.02.2020 in Sessions Case No. 62/2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Bundi whereby charges under Sections 306 and 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were framed. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while referring the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP (1995) Supp (3) SCC, S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 , Ganguly Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 and M. Arjuna Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315 and cases of this Hon'ble Court Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 CRI.L.J. 3066 and Aroma M. Philemon (smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2015 (1) RLW 733 (Raj.) submitted that on the basis of a report, the deceased had committed suicide, a case was registered at P.S. Taleda and during investigation a suicide note was recovered. He further submitted that a stereotype statement of witnesses was recorded and they had clearly stated that deceased was a public servant and due to certain altercations with appellant, he committed suicide. He further referred the statements as recorded by police and submitted that these altercations were not enough to interfere with any act of abetment caused by appellant and that the act was not sufficient to interfere that a direct or live act of suicide was forced upon the deceased. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses indicate that the deceased was advised by his colleague that since they are public servants, while serving the duty, normal altercations take place and we cannot take that as too serious. He submitted that without any basis, a charge-sheet was filed by the police and without application of mind, learned trial Court had framed charge. While referring the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, he further submitted that in case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the instigation must be enough or specific and suggestive of consequence but herein no such evidence on record is available to suggest that appellant accused had ever instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the instigation must be enough or specific and suggestive of consequence but herein no such evidence on record is available to suggest that appellant accused had ever instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that in case of State of West Bengal versus Orilal Jaisawal, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and if it appears that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance and differences then the accused should not be charged for abetting the offence of suicide. He further referred the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police and submitted that use of abusive language and insult, if any, caused to deceased will not by itself constitute the abetment of suicide unless there is evidence to suggest that the accused intended by that very act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. He further referred the judgments of this Court and submitted that only on the basis of oral evidence, having no direct link with the appellant accused, learned trial Court had framed the charges and the same is liable to be interfered. 3. Aforesaid contentions are opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that respondent-complainant was informed regarding filing of present appeal but despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent-complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record and the judgments as cited by learned counsel for appellant. 5. Herein, on the basis of a written complaint filed by Mr. Jitendra Meena, a case was registered and an allegation was made on father-in-law of Sarpanch of Luxmipura. During the course of investigation, present appellant was identified as father-in-law of Sarpanch of Luxmipura. Several witnesses were examined which included other colleagues of deceased and one of the helpers, Mr. Surender Meena, whose statement was referred during the course of arguments. A perusal of these statements indicates that deceased had communications with some of the witnesses and during communication, deceased had revealed that he was scolded and abused by appellant for certain type of work but some of the witnesses further stated that they have persuaded the deceased not to take such altercation or abusive words on heart. A perusal of these statements indicates that deceased had communications with some of the witnesses and during communication, deceased had revealed that he was scolded and abused by appellant for certain type of work but some of the witnesses further stated that they have persuaded the deceased not to take such altercation or abusive words on heart. It was also told to deceased that since they are public servants, these types of altercations used to take place in daily routine life, so the matter has to be treated as routine matter. Besides this, no other act is reported though there are certain allegation of use of certain caste based abusive language by the appellant. Section 107 of IPC reads as under:- 'A person abets the doing of a thing, who: 1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or 2. 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 3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.' 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Arjunan V/s State represented by its Inspector of Police (supra) has laid down that essential ingredients of 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. 7. In case of M.Mohan vs. State [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ] as referred in the case of Aroma M.Philemon (smt.) V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that there should be live link or a proximate link between the acts of the accused and act of committing suicide. If live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated with the intention of commission of suicide. 8. In case of S.S. Cheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- '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. 8. In case of S.S. Cheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- '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 the Supreme 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.' 9. Recently, in case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs Inspector Of Police (criminal appeal No. 1628/2022 decided on 12.10.2022) Hon'ble Apex Court referred the judgment of S.S. Cheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. (supra) and M.Arjunan V/s State represented by its Inspector of Police (supra) allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused, wherein it was specifically observed that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide. Finding no other option, the act must be reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased in such a position that he commits suicide. In view of aforesaid, when we consider the material available on record, it is clear that except the bald statement regarding use of abusive language or scolding, no other live link was brought on record to establish direct connection of accused with act of suicide by deceased. 10. With regard to charges, learned trial Court has not passed a detailed order but the matter was heard and record was examined, thereafter on the basis of prima facie evidence charges were framed and the same is sufficient as regard to order of charge is concerned. Further the framing of charge is again self-explanatory, therefore, it cannot be said that order of charge is without reason and in absence of reasons, the same is liable to be interfered. 11. Further the framing of charge is again self-explanatory, therefore, it cannot be said that order of charge is without reason and in absence of reasons, the same is liable to be interfered. 11. In view of aforesaid circumstances, charge under Section 306 IPC, prima facie is not made out and there are no sufficient grounds or evidence to charge the present appellant under Section 306 IPC but as regard to other charge under section 504 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST act is concerned, use of abusive language and scolding with intent to undermine any individual belonging to SC/ST community is an offence punishable under the law and the statement so recorded further indicates that caste based abusive language was used and same is again a matter of fact to be examined by learned trial Court during the course of trial, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with other charges. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, present appeal is partially allowed and order dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POA) Act Cases, Bundi is partially set aside to the extent that no charge under Section 306 IPC is made out and appellant accused is discharged from charge under Section 306 IPC. The appellant will face trial under rest of the charges.