ORDER : 1. This revision is filed against the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 85/2017, whereby learned Sessions Court dismissed the application filed under Section 227 of CrPC. During pendency of this revision, by way of amendment further relief was sought for setting aside the charges framed against the applicant for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that son of late Om Prakash Sahu gave intimation to the concerned police station that his father committed suicide on 12.03.2017, based upon which morgue was enquired and thereafter F.I.R. was registered on 03.07.2017 against applicants for commission of aforementioned crime. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submit that learned court below erred in considering that even if entire allegation as available in the charge-sheet is taken on its face value, no offence as alleged against applicant for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC would be made out. He contended that from the allegation it is appearing that in the village meeting held on 11.03.2017 applicants have made allegation against deceased Om Prakash that he committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field, threatened for lodging report against him and sending him to jail. On very next day on 12.03.2017 Late Om Prakash committed suicide. He contended that there is no allegation of continuous harassment, ill-treatment or threatening to deceased to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no material to suggest that applicant instigated and abetted for doing the particular thing. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 . 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that Late Om Prakash committed suicide because he was earlier pressurized for compensating the loss suffered by Narayan on account of coming into contact of the standing crops with the fire out of crop stubble burning from the agricultural field of late Om Prakash and thereafter he was further threatened of sending him to jail making false allegation that he has committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field of Jeevan Lal. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicants that the allegation of threatening in the village meeting on 11.03.2017, was on the ground of commission of theft. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that deceased committed suicide by hanging himself on 12.03.2017. In the village meeting on 11.03.2017, it was alleged that Narayan suffered loss on account of coming into contact of the standing crops with the fire out of crop stubble burning from the agricultural field of late Om Prakash, however, there was settlement for compensating the loss to Narayan. Thereafter, he was further threatened of sending him to jail alleging that he has committed theft of Urea from the agricultural field of Jeevan Lal. 7. From the statement of Peman Sahu, son of deceased Om Prakash Sahu, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is appearing that deceased was a farmer was doing agricultural activities. While burning stubble of the crops by him, in his agricultural field, due to sparks some parts of crops of Narayan destroyed due to burning. In the meeting of village panchayat on 11.03.2017, this matter was settled down on deceased’s paying compensation to Narayan for his loss. However, there was further allegation of theft of Urea kept in the field of Jeevan Lal and threatened the deceased to send him to jail. Feeling mentally and physically disturbed, deceased committed suicide by hanging. Similar statement is also made by Sarpanch of the village panchayat in his statement. 8. Section 306 of IPC provides punishment for a ‘abetment of suicide’. ‘Abetment’ has been defined under Section 107 of IPC. Before adverting to the merits of the material in charge sheet, it would also be fruitful to spell out essentials for attracting charge of abetment to suicide and the settled legal position. For bringing home the said charge, it is duty of prosecution to prove that there was abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC deals with abetment. It reads thus: “107. For bringing home the said charge, it is duty of prosecution to prove that there was abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC deals with abetment. It reads thus: “107. 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 lakes 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.” 9. From the definition of Section 107 of IPC, it is manifest that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission or engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. In order to attract the charge of section 306 of IPC, it is incumbent upon prosecution to establish incitement, instigation, aiding or abetment to commit suicide. Law to this extent has been fairly settled in series of cases. 10. In case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with acquittal of accused from the charge under Section 306 of IPC, has cautioned as under:- “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 the life by committing suicide. If it appears 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." 11. In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 a three-Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus: "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." 12. In Randhir Singh & ors vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 129 it was held thus: “12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.” 13. In case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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. 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 let or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.'' 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & ors, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC.” 15. In case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “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 case of State of Kerala vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 4814, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “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 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. 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. 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 above series of cases, it has been held and reiterated that court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced him to end his life by committing suicide. Principle that is culled out is that accused persons should specifically intend that deceased should end up his life. With that sole object in mind, they must have deliberately created circumstances, which are of such nature, that deceased is left with no other alternative but to end up his life. Only in such circumstances charge of abetment to commit suicide can be said to be successfully brought home. With that sole object in mind, they must have deliberately created circumstances, which are of such nature, that deceased is left with no other alternative but to end up his life. Only in such circumstances charge of abetment to commit suicide can be said to be successfully brought home. It is also to be borne in mind that merely on the allegation of harassment/torture 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, framing charge or conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. 18. From the above decisions, it is quite clear that so as to bring the case within the ambit of 'abetment' under Section 107 IPC, there has to be material/evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of accused. On going through the testimony of all the witnesses, it is emerging that deceased in the village meeting held on 11.03.2017 settled for compensating Narayan for his loss and deceased also accepted of theft of Urea from the agricultural field of Jeevanlal for which the applicants warned him and gave threat of sending him in jail, in front of the village head meeting. There is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference can be drawn that applicants having abetted commission of suicide to deceased Om Prakash. Hence, the moot question that arise is, what triggered or what prompted deceased to end up his life by committing suicide, is unclear. It is settled law that if the instigation for commission of suicide is not established by the prosecution then certainly the charge under Section 306 of IPC cannot be framed. 19. Very recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387], has observed that, “Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his life ” 20. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for applicants in Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that word ‘suicide’ is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for applicants in Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that word ‘suicide’ is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, it’s meaning and import is well known. The word ‘sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’. In other words, the act must have been so intended to push the deceased in a situation that the deceased is driven to commit suicide. The said decision is distinguishable regard being had to the factual score exposited therein. 21. Thus, keeping in mind the mandates of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the provisions contained in Section 306 of IPC and on perusal of the entire material available against the applicant in charge-sheet, which does not prima facie disclose that applicant had ever instigated or intentionally aided or conspired for commission of suicide by the deceased, framing of charge under Section 306, 34 of IPC against applicant appears to be erroneous. 22. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 CrPC, as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor's case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. Relevant principles culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision read thus:- “27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.” 23. Thus, in the light of the principles of law laid down in the case of Amit Kapoor (Supra) and looking to the material available in record based on which trial Court framed charge under Section 306/34 IPC, this criminal revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.12.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. framing charge in Sessions Trial No. 85/2017, so far as it relates to present applicants, is hereby set aside and they are discharged from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 24. Certified copy as per rules.