The judgment establishes that to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be active instigation or intentional aid by the accused, as defined by legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - Challenge in the instant revision is to the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. In brief, the facts as alleged are, that FIR 37 dated 1.5.2010 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC was registered against one Mohinder Singh and his other family members, namely, Kulsia, Rustam Singh @ Kala, Kiran and Rakhi, on the allegations that Munish Devi deceased was killed, who was real daughter-in-law of Mohinder Singh. The FIR came to be registered at the behest of Kuldeep Singh with the allegations that his sister Munish Devi was married in the year 1996 with Shamsher Singh @ Gora son of Mohinder Singh. Out of this wedlock three children were born. About two years ago (prior to the registration of the FIR on 1.5.2010), the husband of the deceased and his family members asked for Rs. 7 lakhs in order to send the husband of the deceased abroad, which amount would be returned later on. The said amount was given and thereafter the husband of the deceased left for abroad. Once the husband of the deceased went to abroad, his family members, including the father-in-law the present petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the object not to return the money, and started harassing the complainant's sister. Under such conspiracy, on 30.4.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. a telephonic call was received that Gora had remitted money from abroad and the same should be collected. However, after some time, the complainant again received a telephonic call that he should come after 5-7 days. That father-in-law Mohinder Singh, mother-in-law Kaushalaya, brother-in-law Kala, sister-in-law Kiran and Rakhi daughter of Kala, residents of Balachaur conveyed these telephonic messages, while standing near his sister. This way, again at about 10/10.30 p.m. he received a telephonic call from Mohinder Singh that his sister has locked herself inside the room and she is not opening the door asked him to come there. At about 1 a.m. the dead body of his sister was found lying in the room. Based on this complaint, a FIR was registered.

3. After registration of the FIR, Mohinder Singh (father-in-law of the deceased) moved an application to Station House Officer, Police Station Balachaur for registration of a case against the petitioner and her husband Kulwinder Singh @ Bittu @ Dannu for abetting his daughter-in-law deceased Munish Devi to commit suicide. On the representation made by said Mohinder Singh, the matter was re-investigated and the case was converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 306 IPC against the petitioner, her husband Kulwinder Singh @ Bittu @ Dannu, and Mohinder Singh and the challan was accordingly presented. As already noticed, during the trial charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC by order dated 28.7.2011, which is under challenge in the present revision.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the husband of the deceased had gone abroad through the husband of the petitioner, who was already residing in Manila. The deceased also wanted to send her brother abroad through the husband of the petitioner and on account of this, she was in regular contact with the petitioner's husband and in this process they developed physical relations. On 18.4.2010 Mohinder Singh (father-in-law of the deceased) caught them red handed in a compromising position and on this account the deceased committed suicide on 30.4.2010. It is further contended that if the facts, as mentioned in the suicide note, are taken on their face value as it is, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner, as the ingredients constituting the offence of 'abetment' are absolutely missing therefrom. In fact