JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Mr.Raju, learned advocate for the applicants does not press this application qua applicant no.1, who is husband of the deceased. Permission is granted, as prayed for, without going into merits of the case of applicant no.1. This revision application is considered only qua applicants nos.2 to 5, who are accused nos.2 to 5.

2. By way of the present application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, in Sessions Case No.26 of 2013, below Exhibit-6, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the discharge application filed by the applicants.

3. The facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased while applicant No.2 is the father-in-law. Applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased Bhargaviben Narodiya. As per the prosecution's case, accused No. 1 got married to the daughter of the complainant in 2007. The husband and wife both resided separately at Ankleshwar. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 were married and they often visited Ankleshwar. It is alleged that present applicant Nos.2 to 5 used to taunt the deceased and instigate accused no.1, and due to this alleged incident has happened and the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, a complaint was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.2 After the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet before learned JMFC, who was not having jurisdiction to try the case and, therefore, the case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, culminating in Sessions Case No.26 of 2013. In this case, the applicants-accused filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed.

4. Going through the allegations and records/papers collected during the investigation, it appears that accused nos.2 to 5 were residing separately and they were not residing with the deceased and accused no.1. The applicant no.4 was residing with her husband in Dubai and later shifted to Surat, one and a half years before the incident. The applicant no.5 is a primary teacher and she is residing in Ahmedabad with her husband for the last ten years. The applicant nos.2 and 3 reside in Gondal. The applicant no.2 has his own cotton business and is financially independent.

5. Furthermore, eight months prior to the incident, the deceased left her job she was suffering from mental trauma, due to some gynecological problems and was under medical treatment. One more important aspect is that a suicide note dated 15^th August 2010 was recovered during the investigation. It was in the handwriting of the deceased herself, which is confirmed by handwriting experts, as per the FSL report. In the note, she clearly stated that neither her husband nor her in-laws nor her parents are responsible for her suicide. The note has been seized by the investigation officer by drawing panchnama. Considering these facts and the suicide note, the applicant nos.2 to 5 are not even remotely connected with instigation, and there is no proximate cause or iota of evidence regarding taunting or mental harassment by applicant nos.2 to 5.

6. Regarding the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove abetment and instigation. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC:

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.

Abetment defined under Section 107 of the IPC involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspir