ORDER :

1. This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings pertaining to crime No.382/2017 for offence under Section 306 of IPC/ST No.6/2018 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Pipariya, District Hoshangabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, one Ramkunvar Bai aged 70 years committed suicide in the intervening night of 20-21/09/2017 and merg intimation was given by deceased’s son Liladhar. Allegations against present petitioners are that one-two months prior to the suicide committed by deceased, presentpetitioners circulated a rumor to the effect that deceased had killed one calf (Bachhda). With respect to aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to statements of Liladhar, Narmada, Laxminarayan and Seema. It is also urged that even if prosecution case is accepted in toto, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out as ingredients constituting offence under Section 306 of IPC are not prima facie, established from evidence on record. Hence, petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, Hoshangabad with respect to crime No.382/17 for offence under Section 306 of IPC/ST No.6/18 be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that from statements of Liladhar and other witnesses, prima facie offence under Section 306 of IPC is clearly made out against petitioners. Hence, no ground for quashment is made out. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused record of the case.

5. Thus, in the instant case, sole issue involved in the case is as to whether from evidence on record, prima facie offence under Section 306 of IPC against petitioner is made out or not.

6. LEGAL PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC

7. Before proceedings further and discussing of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to discuss basic legal principles/legal parameters with respect to offenceunder Section 306/107 of IPC and reproduce relevant pronouncements having bearing on the issue.

8. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 (3-Judge Bench), Hon’ble apex has laid down as under:

“13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration:-

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

First-Instigates any person to do that thing;

* * *

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

14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous………...”

16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 , where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear