RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by complainant against the judgment dated 28. 11. 2007, whereby, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur acquitted the accused respondent from the charges for offence under Section 306 IPC. Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which fully proved the charges of abatement to commit suicide against the respondents. It was argued that marriage of the petitioner's sister, who was daughter of the deceased Banwari Lal Mishra, was solemnized with the accused-respondent on 29. 1. 2005. The accused- respondent served the notice for divorce on his sister for divorce on 19. 9. 2006. Sister of the petitioner lodged first Information Report against the accused-respondent for the offence of demand of dowry punishable under Section 498 A IPC on 24. 9. 2006. The respondent went to the shop where the petitioner's father was serving on 27. 9. 2006 and threatened him with dire consequences. Learned counsel argued that allegation made by the petitioner-informant in the FIR was that the accused-respondent threatened Banwarilal Mishra of dire consequences, if he did not make payment of the dowry of Rs. 1 lakh. Learned counsel also referred to the statements of the PW 5 Amarchand, brother-in-law of the deceased, PW. 9 Deepshikha, daughter of the deceased and PW. 10 Mangilal Gehlot. Learned counsel argued that from all these statements, it is proved that the accused-respondent had come to the shop where deceased was working on 27. 9. 2006 and asked him to get the paper for consent divorce signed or withdraw the criminal case. It was argued that the accused-respondent in fact, stated that if deceased Banwarilal was not capable of arranging even a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, he does not deserve to live. The learned counsel further submitted that the kind of threat that was extended to Banwarilal Mishra and proximity of time of such threat with the time of suicide committed by him, sufficiently prove the abatement made by the accused-respondent for committing suicide. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned as also the material available on record. It is evident from the various statements which are available on record that the daughter of the deceased. PW. 9 Deepshikha was having matrimonial dispute with the accused- respondent. The accused-respondent had served a notice for divorce upon her on 19. 9. 2006, who then filed FIR against the accused-respondent on 24. 9. 2006 for offence under Section 498 A IPC. All the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself as PW. 1, have stated that the deceased informed them that the accused-respondent had come to the shop where he was working on 27. 9. 2006 and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not withdraw the criminal case or did not make payment of Rs. 1 lakh. But the kind of words that are attributed to the accused respondent by the petitioner while threatening the deceased are not borne out from the aforesaid statements except that PW. 9 Deepshikha, in her examination in chief has stated that the deceased told her that when accused went to shop, he asked that if he did not have a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to pay to accused- respondent he deserves to die. Question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the demand of money and on that basis, threat extended by accused-respondent to deceased Banwarilal Mishra two days before the fateful day on which he committed suicide, if accepted as correct, can by itself prove beyond reasonable doubt offence of abatement to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. In order to attract ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC, the intention of the accused to ad or to instigate the deceased to commit suicide are necessarily to be proved. While suicide in the present has been proved, intention on the part of the accused-respondent on available evidence to abate deceased to commit such suicide cannot be taken as proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 107 of the IPC defines what is abatement as under:      " 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- Intnetionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. "
(3.) SECTION 108 of the IPC defines the abater as under:      " 108 Abettor.- A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1. The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Illustration (a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. (b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder. Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Illustration (a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. (b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does not act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death. (c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wring or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence. (d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore, does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft. Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence. Illustration A. instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment. Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed. Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder. A. Abetment in India of offences outside India.- A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India. Illustration A, in India, instigates B, a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in Goa. A is guilty of abetting murder. " Section 107 (supra) defines abetment of an offence. Abetment is a separate and distinct offence described as such in the penal Code. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) instigates that one or more other person in any conspiracy for doing that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal commission by doing that thing. Any of these three ingredients are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word `instigate' in law means `to promote', `to urge on' or `to bring about' any pursuation to do any thing. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided in one of three clauses of Section 107. It would be thus evident from the scheme of the penal policy of the legislature reflected in the aforesaid provisions that a person who abates the commission of an offence or of an act which would be an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing of an offence with the same intention only as that of the abator, such person, if the alleged abatement to commit offence happens to be suicide, according to Section 306 of the IPC, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Though ordinarily the commission of offence as well as the abatement to commit such offence are both made punishable in the law. This is so because the liability of an abator of the crime is co- extensive with that of the principle of offender. Suicide however, contemplates a situation where the person committing suicide is no longer available for being punished and therefore, not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. Like any other offence, the element of intention or knowledge or at least one of them, on the part of the person alleged to have committed the offence of abatement, is required to be proved. In the facts of the present case, even if the circumstances, as are alleged on the basis of evidence, are assumed to be proved and taken cumulatively, they do not indicate any such mens rea on the part of the accused-respondent. ;