This revision petition is directed under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (In brief 'the Code') against the order dated 26.8.2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 213/04 whereby the direction for framing the charges for an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been gi ven and in pursuance of it the same are framed.

The brief facts of the case are that one Chintu @ Vivek gave a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to Vivek Gautam (the deceased), again the said amount was given by the deceased to the present applicant and as alleged this amount was not repaid by the applicant to the deceased in his life time and was tortured and harassed in respect of demand of said loan amount by Chintu @ Vivek and due to this some unhappy incident took place in between the deceased Vivek Gautam, Chintu @ Vivek and present applicant and when the deceased was pressurized by Chintu for repayment of said loan amount and the same was not paid by the present applicant to the deceased, in such a circumstance he committed suicide by consuming poisoning substance by leaving a suicide note in which abovesaid facts were mentioned.

On the death of Vivek Gautam, a Murg was registered and in continuation of it an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant and Chintu. Charge sheet was submitted after holding the investigation and same was committed to the Sessions Court where the direction for framing the charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against applicant and other accused was given.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that on the basis of charge sheet and its contents no ingredients of the offence are made out against applicant even on evaluating the entire facts as enumerated in the charge sheet.

He further submitted that as per section 306 of Indian Penal Code till the abetment of any count as enumerated and defined in section 107 of Indian Penal Code is not proved till then no case is made out for framing the charges. For giving strength to his contention he cited the following decisions: (1) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 (2) JLJ 215 = AIR 2002 SC 1998, Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of M.P., 1994 JLJ 758 = 1995 MPLJ 458 (3), Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPWN 34.

He further submitted that in the present matter the other accused Chintu @ Vivek has already been discharged by this Court vide order dated 3.11.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 1464/04 and copy of this order has also been placed on record.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent State supported and justified the impugned order of framing of charges and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:

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."

It is apparent that from the language of this section the abetment is most important ingredients of the offence and the abetment is not defined separately in that section: Therefore, section 107 of Indian Penal Code which defines abetment is referable at this stage in which the ingredients of the abetment are explained. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:

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 things, 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."

It is apparent that the 3 ingredients are basic requirement for determining the case of abetment. First, the concerning person w