( 1 ) A-1 is the husband of A-2. They were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Sec. 109, I. P. C. and each one is sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rupees 500/- each, in default to suffer R. I. for two months each under two counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently under the two counts. Hence, the Revision.

( 2 ) THE petitioners/accused reside in the opposite direction of the house of PW-7 who was working as a Primary School Headmaster. The deceased Lakshmikanthamma and Krishnaveni are the wife and daughter of PW-7. The case of the prosecution is that there used to be quarrels between the two families at public tap for getting water. The marriage of the daughter of PW-7 i. e. , the deceased Krishnaveni was fixed on 8-11-1991. The petitioners/accused were threatening and abusing Smt. Lakshmikanthamma and Krishnaveni that they will reveal the illicit contacts of Krishnaveni to her would be husband. Therefore both the women went and jumped into a high level canal. Krishnaveni, the daughter of PW-7 drowned. But somebody rescued Smt. Lakshmikanthamma. Subsequently, it seems she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. Hence, the charge.

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts below on consideration of the evidence available on record and also the suicide note of Smt. Lakshmikanthamma, marked as Ex. P-2, held that the case under Section 306 r. w. Section 109, I. P. C. was made out and the sentences as mentioned above were passed. Hence, the Revision.

( 4 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submitted that on the evidence available on record, the ingredients of Section 306 r/w. Section 109, I. P. C. are not made out. To bring home the guilt of the petitioners/accused, the ingredients of Section 107, I. P. C. are to be made out. There should be intentional aiding in the commission of suicide. There was only quarrel and threat by the petitioners/accused. They do not form or take the shape of intentional instigation or intentional aiding in the commission of suicide. There are no further words like, commit suicide etc. , in the threat given by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, no case is made out for the said offence.

( 5 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in Shri Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 175 : (1975 Cri LJ 240 ). In that case, the Supreme Court held as follows :-"5. Different considerations, however, arise in regard to Violet. The only part attributed to her is that on seeing Kunwar Singh she shouted. "the Vakil has come". It is difficult to believe that Violet was assigned the particular role especially when Sia Ram and his companions could themselves have detected the presence of Kunwar Singh more easily and with lesser ado. Violet s brother Ramesh, a lad of 16, could have with greater ease and effectiveness played the swift role of alterting the assailants of Kunwar Singh. But the Sessions Court and the High Court have accepted the evidence that Violet did give the particular shout and in accordance with our usual practice we would not like to take a different view of these simple facts.

( 6 ) THE question which then arises for consideration, a question to which the Sessions Court and the High Court have not paid enough attention, is whether the only inference which arises from the fact that Violet gave the particular shout is that by so doing, she intended to facilitate the murder of Kunwar Singh, Section 107 of the Penal Code which defines abetment provides to the extent material that a person abets the doing of a thing whom "intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing". Explanation 2 to the Section says that:-"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 facilites the commission thereof, is said to aid th