The main legal point established is that intentional aid or instigation is essential to establish the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

These petitions seek the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and to call for the records in Crime No.558 of 2007 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.

2. One Arjun Singh died on 29.08.2007 at 4.00 p.m., seemingly due to hanging. He had left a note in his pocket. On the strength thereof, the case which originally was registered by the first respondent police under Sections 174 of Cr.P.C stands altered to 306 I.P.C. The petitioners before this Court are the 1st and 2nd accused.

3. Mr.Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners took this Court through the provisions of Section 107 IPC and several decisions on what would constitute abetment and what would not. The learned Senior Counsel contended that unless the abetment as understood under the law stands established, no offence under Section 306 I.P.C which provides for abetment of suicide and punishment therefor would stand attracted. Useful reference may be had to the relevant portions of some of the citations relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel.

In the case of Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) SC 647:

"10. Section 107 I.P.C. Defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as on offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the Act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Abetted in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence".

In the case of Pawan Kumar Bhalotia V. State of W.B. 2005 SCC (Cri) 543 "6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag".

In the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State of M.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141

"14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26.07.1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25.07.1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26.07.1