The essential elements of abetment under S.306 IPC must be established, involving direct actions or instigation prompting the individual to commit suicide.

1. The Appellants in the present appeal have been convicted for the offence punishable under S.306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs 1,000/- with usual default stipulations judgment dated 6.7.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.512/1997.

2. The brief facts are that the deceased Champa Bai was married to Appellant No.2 - Pardesi somewhere in the month of May, 1997 and she died by committing suicide on 17.8.1997 by consuming poisonous substance. A merg intimation in this regard was sent to police station Kondagaon in District. Bilaspur. Later on, on the basis of the investigation, the First Information Report was lodged on 9.9.1997 i e. almost after a month from the date of incident. The Appellants i.e. Appellant No. 1 - Bhagirathi, the father - in - law and Appellant No.2 - Pardesi, the husband of the deceased were prosecuted for the offence under S.304 - B IPC and alternatively, they were prosecuted for having committed an offence under S.306 IPC. The matter was put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.512/1997 vide its judgment dated 6.7.1999 and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the present Appellants for the offence under S.304 - B IPC and accordingly, acquitted them from the said offence. However, on the basis of the evidence which has come on record, particularly the statement of Rambhavati, PW - 1, the sister of the deceased Kanhaiyalal. PW - 4, the father of the deceased and Babulal PW - 13, the Surpanch of the village, the Trial Court held that the Appellants were held guilty of the offence punishable under S.306 IPC and then accordingly, convicted for the same and sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years leading to the filing of the present Appeal.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment, Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence which has come on record for convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under S.306 IPC According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the prosecution has failed to establish its case by leading cogent evidence so as to make out a case under S.306 IPC. Referring to the said Section Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in order to make out a case under S.306 IPC, the prosecution has to lead strong and cogent evidence with which. It can be said that the Appellants or the accused persons have abetted the commission of suicide According to him, abetment has been defined under S.107 IPC. Referring to this Section, he had submitted that the prosecution firstly has to lead evidence to show that there has been an instigation on the part of the accused person or the accused persons have encouraged the deceased in a manner either personally or by way of conspiracy forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the prosecution also should have established that the Appellants had intentionally aided by any act or an illegal emotion forcing the deceased to commit suicide and in the instant case, none of the prosecution witnesses have been able to bring out an act of either instigation or an act by which the Appellants had intentionally aided in the commission of the act by the deceased and in the absence of any such cogent evidence by the prosecution, conviction under S.306 - IPC could not be maintained.

4. Referring to the statements of Rambhavati, PW - 1, Kanhaiyalal. PW - 4 and Babulal, PW - 13, Counsel for the Appellants submits that there is nothing in the evidence of these persons