P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. The appellant, who is the accused in S.C.No.618/2004 of Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, (Adhoc)-II, challenges the judgment of conviction under section 309 r/w 109 IPC. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months, being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that on 8.11.2003, accused abetted Bajitha to commit suicide and on 9.11.2003 at 11 a.m. she consumed poison entrusted by the appellant, as a result, she became unconscious, immediately, she was taken to Taluk hospital, Thodupuzha and thereafter at Holy Family hospital, Muthalakodam where she had undergone treatment. Karimannoor Police registered crime No.200/2003 and after investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannoor laid charge under section 306 IPC before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha., from there it was committed to Sessions Court.

3. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 as documentary evidence. MO1 series were marked as material objects and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked during examination of witnesses. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him, and he was heard under section 232 Cr.P.C, but he did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court convicted the accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to prove abetment. Moreover, no crime was registered against the persons who attempted to commit suicide. There is no medical evidence to show that appellant entrusted poison and she had consumed that poison. Mere oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not sufficient, when there is no evidence of abetment.

5. A person abets the doing of a thing means, firstly he instigates any person to do that thing or secondly engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy for committing an offence or thirdly intentionally aids, a person by any act or illegal omission to commit an offence or illegally omits the doing of an act which would prevent the commission of the offence. While determining the law of abetment, the Court has to consider what act he had abetted and secondly, with what intention and, as per that intention, what act was committed. Therefore, the identity of the intention of the abettor and the actor is relevant. The act was committed by the actor only with the instigation of the abetted person. Therefore, the liability of the abettor and the actor is equal. Moreover, such abetment and act have to be proved by the prosecution. A person is said to instigate another to do an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Here, the allegation is that the revision petitioner instigated PW2 to attempt to commit suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove that PW2 had attempted to commit suicide or she did any act towards the commission of such offence. A person who abets the commission of offence be punished, provided for the offence. Here, the person, who attempted to commit suicide, was not charge sheeted by the Police, on the other hand, the abettor alone was charge sheeted.

6. The allegation in this case is that the appellant had intentionally aided PW2 to commit suicide in this case. For ascertaining this, I have examined the oral evidence of PW2, which shows that the appellant was her lover for the last four years and she had physical relationship with him. One Shaji once saw their physical relationship and thereafter he threatened her. After this incident, appellant demanded her to commit suicide, but she refused that demand and after two-three days, he disturbed her several times. On 8.11.2003, at 2 p.m. they again met in her property, the appellant reminded her to commit s