ORDER

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2022 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Agar, district Shajapur in S.T.No.18/2021 whereby the respondent/accused has been convicted under section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year eight months with fine of Rs.2000/- with further default stipulation and acquitted under section 306 of the IPC.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal under section 306 IPC, State has filed this appeal on the ground that there is sufficient evidence against the respondent for conviction under section 306 IPC but the trial court has wrongly acquitted him. Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution witnesses PW/1 Lalji, PW/2 Durgabai and PW/5 Ajay have supported the prosecution case and deposed that the respondent has abetted deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court is perverse and requires to be modified.

3. Counsel for the respondent on the contrary has opposed the contention of the appellant and submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court regarding acquittal is in accordance with law and procedure. The respondent has already suffered one year eight months jail sentence and there is no sufficient evidence against the respondent under section 306 of the IPC, hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Considering the contentions raised in the appeal memo, the question arises for consideration is whether the trial court has erred in acquitting the respondent under section 306 of the IPC.

6. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:

306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.''

7. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C which reads as under :-

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under:-

“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

Further, in para 12 of the judgment, it is held as under:

“12. ..... The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. ....”

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 needs mentioned here, in which Hon'ble apex Court has held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. Also, reiterated, if