ORDER : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.222/2006, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the deceased/Savita and the appellant/Sunil Kumar Rahuja had performed love marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur after absconding their house. After some time of the marriage, the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased for dowry and demanded money for his tea shop. It is alleged by the father of the deceased that when the deceased Savita was come to her maternal home in Mahasamund, she told that what happened with her by her husband, at this instance, the father of the deceased had given the house hold articles to his daughter and had given a sum of Rs.13,000/- on the demand of the appellant, still the accused/appellant ill-treated/harassed the deceased for dowry and continuously assaulted her. On 22-01-2006, when the father of the deceased was coming Raipur, he got the information that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed based upon which trial Court framed the charges against the appellant. 5. After completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant without there being any sufficient evidence available on record against him. He further submits that if the entire case of prosecution is taken as it is, the act committed by the appellant does not fall within the purview of Section 306 of the IPC. There in no conclusive evidence available on record which shows that the appellant had in any manner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. The trial Court has not evaluated the entire evidence in its right perspective, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 7. There in no conclusive evidence available on record which shows that the appellant had in any manner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. The trial Court has not evaluated the entire evidence in its right perspective, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant and submitted that on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned including the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. 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 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant/accused or not? 10. At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the provisions of Sections 306 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.” 11. As per the definition given in Chapter-V of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients: “I. it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused aided, abetted, counseled or procured the commission of the principal offence: II. that the principal offence was in fact committed; and III. that he had the intent to aid or encourage its commission.” 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. 13. 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. 13. 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 the 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. 14. PW-1 (Sundarlal Yadav), father of the victim admitted in his cross-examination that he had given the house hold articles to his daughter voluntarily. Even after the appellant demanded money for his tea shop, on his demand, the father of the victim had given him a sum of Rs.13,000/-, the accused/appellant still ill-treated/harassed the deceased for dowry and continuously assaulted her. 15. From the statements of PW-2/Smt. Malti Yadav, mother of the deceased and PW-3/Dinesh Kumar Yadav, brother of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by the accused hence, she committed suicide. 16. It is an admitted fact that the victim/deceased and appellant had performed love marriage against the wish of family members of the deceased, due to which the family of the deceased was annoyed with the deceased. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Court has acquitted accused of the charges under Section 304-B of the IPC holding that there is no evidence with regard to harassment and cruelty occurred to the victim. 18. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Court has acquitted accused of the charges under Section 304-B of the IPC holding that there is no evidence with regard to harassment and cruelty occurred to the victim. 18. Apart from this, the deceased was suffering from Acute Chronic PID and the accused, in his defence, produced a document of Bagdi Nursing Home dated 08.09.2005 whereby it is found that she was treated for stomach pain, due to which, she committed suicide but this defence of accused is not acceptable. Although the trial Court imposed the sentence and convicted him under Section 306 of IPC. 19. 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 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." 20. In case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. Sate of Karnataka reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that to commit the accused for committing the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created situation that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 21. Reverting the fact that in this case there is no evidence that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and also there is no evidence to instigate the deceased by the appellant. 22. For offence under Section 306 of IPC there should be clear mens-rea to commit the abetment and there should be a direct or active act by the appellant which lead the deceased to commit suicide. 22. For offence under Section 306 of IPC there should be clear mens-rea to commit the abetment and there should be a direct or active act by the appellant which lead the deceased to commit suicide. Intentionally aiding a person to do a thing also includes in abatement, but from the record it cannot be inferred that the appellant instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. 23. It is not in dispute that the deceased was wife of appellant. They both had performed love marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur prior to 8-9 months before the incident. Dead body of the deceased was examined by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-5) his report is Ex.P/2. It was found by him that the deceased was dead due to suffocation caused by hanging. 24. On perusal of the record, it transpires the fact that there is nothing to show that any type of instigation made by the appellant to the deceased. It is also transpires from the record that there is nothing to show that the appellant intentionally adduced, by any act or illegal omission of doing that thing. There is no evidence has been brought on record to show that there has been any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused before the death of the deceased which demonstrates that the appellant was responsible for the same. 25. The statements made by the witnesses is based on information given by the deceased, but no complaint was made by them during lifetime and no medical examination was conducted regarding physical violence. In absence of evidence of physical violence it cannot be said violence is committed by the appellant. 26. Considering facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, statements of the witnesses, other evidence/material available on record, in the considered view of this Court, this particular reason cannot be constituted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the appellant for his guilt. The act and conduct of the appellant as stated by the witnesses does not fall within the manner of instigation or abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/08/2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 28. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/08/2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 28. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at that stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 29. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.