JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2007 passed by Digitally signed the learned 2 nd Upper Session Judge (FTC), Janjgir (C.G.) in ST by No.77/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of the deceased Tikaitin Bai was solemnized with the accused/appellant prior to 4 years of the incident. Owing to dashgatra in the family of the appellant due to demise of his grandmother, the mother of the deceased had left her to her matrimonial house and after 9 days therefrom, she committed suicide by consuming liquor. The appellant tried to hospitalize her but she could not be hospitalized and died. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellant by the family of the deceased. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There were only tiny issues between the appellant and the deceased but the appellant never tortured or harassed her and she himself committed suicide by consuming poison. The ingredients of Sections 107 & 306 of IPC are not attracted and there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the deceased committed suicide either on the instigation or any short of abetment caused by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others vs State of Gujarat , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 116 , Mohit Singhal and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others , reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Ramkumar and others vs State of Chhattisgarh , passed in CRA No.730/2003, decided on 04.09.2024 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 Dr. Umesh Kumar Markam conducted postmortem of deceased and opined that mode of death is asphyxia and cause of death is unknown and gave his report (Ex-P/1). He admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that asphyxia can be caused due to vomiting and diarrhea. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that death of the deceased was suicidal in nature. 8. PW-2 Budharu Ram, father of the deceased, stated that the deceased Tikaitin Bai married to appellant prior to 4 to 5 years of the incident and thereafter the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased and subsequently there was compromise between them vide Ex-P/4. The appellant did not do any work and used to doubt on her character. 9. PW-3 Kheekh Bai, mother of deceased stated that the appellant used to torture and harass her daughter and panchayat was also convened in this regard and thereafter compromise was done between them but even then the appellant used to torture her daughter. She further stated that Owing to dashgatra in the family of the appellant due to demise of his grandmother, the accused had taken the deceased to his house and after 9 days therefrom, she committed suicide by consuming liquor. She denied this suggestion that the deceased died due vomiting and diarrhea and stated that she died due to consuming liquor. 10. PW-4 Shiv Kumar Tandon, brother of deceased, stated the same story and stated that the quarrel used to take place between the appellant and the deceased and ultimately the accused gave poison to the deceased and killed her. 11. PW-5 Tulsiram admitted his signature on compromise document (Ex-P/4) and stated that he had heard that the deceased Tikaitin Bai died by consuming poison. 12. 11. PW-5 Tulsiram admitted his signature on compromise document (Ex-P/4) and stated that he had heard that the deceased Tikaitin Bai died by consuming poison. 12. Dhir Bai (PW-6), Ram Sanehi (PW-7) and Shambhu Lal (PW-8) stated that they heard that the deceased Tikaitin Bai died by consuming liquor and when they reached to the spot, the appellant told them that the deceased died due to vomiting and diarrhea and there were also vomiting and diarrhea marks on the body of the deceased. 13. The Investigating Officer Sadhna Singh (PW-9) stated that at the time of inquest memo, all the witnesses stated that the deceased died due to dehydration and due to food poisoning and no FSL report was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. 14. All the witnesses stated that quarrel used to take place between the deceased and the accused and as per compromise application (Ex-P/4) some agreement was executed before village panchayat between the accused and the deceased that they would now live peacefully. 15. Sections 107 & 306 of IPC provide as under:- “Section 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. Section 306 - 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.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayedeepsinh (supra) held in paras 22 to 27 as under:- “22. Section 306 IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 IPC. Section 306 IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life. 23. For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea-the intention to abet the act-is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. 24. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, wherein it was observed that: (SCC p. 197, para 25) "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 the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 25. To bring a conviction under Section 306 IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. To bring a conviction under Section 306 IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, defined the word "instigate" as under. (SCC d p. 629, para 20) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 26. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under -Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 27. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.” 17. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohit Singhal (supra) held in paras 9 & 10 as under:- “9. Section 306 IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 IPC, which defines the "abetment of a thing", reads thus: "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. Explanation 1-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing." (emphasis supplied) 10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.” 18. In light of the above in the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove nature of death of the deceased whether suicidal or homicidal and statement of the witnesses clearly shows that some dispute used to take place between the the appellant and the deceased, but essential ingredients of Section 107 of IPC abetment of suicide are clearly missing in the statements of the witnesses. The mother and brother of deceased stated that the appellant is jobless so it is not proved that the appellant in any manner instigated the deceased to commit suicide so it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant but the learned trial Court did not appreciate these facts and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Thus the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of IPC. 20. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 21. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.