ORDER
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. All the aforesaid revisions arise out of the common order, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Applicants have filed these revisions against the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 49/2007, framing charge against them under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submit that on the basis of material and evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case, no ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. As such, Trial Court has committed error in framing the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants.
4. In short, prosecution case is that Jitendra Vaswani (deceased) was married to the daughter of accused Bemumal. Some time after the marriage, Kashish, wife of deceased, left his house and went to her father’s house. Despite repeated requests by deceased, Bemumal did not send her back and instead, demanded Rs. 5 Lacs from him. He intimidated him that if the aforesaid money was not paid, he would lodge a report against him and his family members of cruelty and demand of dowry. It is also said that other accused persons namely Manish, Assu @ Ashok, Sakeel and Shadaab used to demand money from the deceased for tea and betels. On not giving money to them, these persons threatened him to kill. Being harassed by the demands made by Bemumal and other accused persons, deceased committed suicide by consuming poison (Sulphas) on 24.09.2006. On post mortem examination, death of deceased was found due to poison.
5. During the investigation, police seized a death note written by deceased and also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The death note was addressed to Station Office of Police, Narsinghpur. It was mentioned in the said note that his wife Kashish had gone to her parent’s house on the occasion of “Rakhi” , but subsequently she refused to come back. Her father Bemumal demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs for sending Kashish back to his house, otherwise, he threatened that he would lodge a report that his family members were demanding dowry. At the time of marriage negotiations, there were no talks about dowry. Being harassed by the aforesaid conduct of Bemumal, he wanted to die. It was also mentioned in the said note that some boys of Narsinghpur viz. Manish, Assu, Shadaab and Sakeel used to demand rupees five from him. On not giving money to them, they threatened him to kill. All the aforesaid persons were responsible for his death.
7. Similar statements were given by the prosecution witnesses Jai Vaswani, Ashok Vaswani, Vijay, Ram Kumar, Moti and Gurumukh. All the aforesaid witnesses stated that Bemumal demanded Rs. 5 Lacs from the deceased for sending his daughter back. On not meeting the demand, he threatened the deceased to lodge a report of demand of dowry against his family members. They also stated that other accused persons used to demand rupees five for tea and betels from the deceased. Being annoyed and harassed, the deceased committed suicide by swallowing poison.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the ratio of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 AIR SCW 2035, Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr. 1995 Supp.(3) Supreme Court Cases 438 and Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P. 1994 JLJ 758.
9. On perusal of the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is apparent that the necessary ingredient of the offence is “abetment”. The term “abetment” is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. As per definition given in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, “abetment” is constituted by :
(i) instigating a person to commit an offence; or
(ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
(iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
10. 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 or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. For making out the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the accused should have goaded or urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. Mere demand of money from him or extending threats to him for not meeting the demand can never be held as provocation for commission of suicide.
11. In the present case allegations against the accused persons are that they demanded money from deceased and on not yielding to their demand, they intimidated him. So far as accused Bemumal is concerned, he demanded Rs. 5 Lacs for sending his daughter to the house of deceased. He also threatened him that he would lodged a report against his family members making accusation of demand of dowry. Taking the evidence adduced by the prosecution, comprising the death note and statements of prosecution witnesses, as it is, it cannot be inferred that the accused ever intended that the deceased should commit suicide.
12. In case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra), the Apex Court held that mere words uttered by the accused to deceased “go and die”, were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. In case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra), again the Apex Court reiterated that the accused telling deceased “go and die”, itself would not constitute the ingredients of instigation. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. The fact that the deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which the said words were uttered by the accused, would show that suicide was not direct result of the quarrel. Suicide note left by the deceased that he was in great stress and depression and the statement of his wife that he was frustrated; cannot make out the case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the accused persons at all intended that the deceased should commit suicide. There is absolutely no evidence that the accused persons in any manner insisted, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Deceased committed suicide out of frustration. Since the essential ingredient of “abetment” to deceased to commit suicide by the accused is not found in the facts of the present case, the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand.
14. Accordingly, all the aforesaid three revisions are allowed. Impugned order framing the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants is set aside. They are discharged.