ORDER
S.R.K. Prasad, J.
1. Sri P. Umamaheswar was a resident of Kondapeta, Dhone. He was doing mining 633 business and having incurred heavy debts he left Dhone and undertook contracts at Thirunalvelli. It is alleged that he supplied 'napa' slabs stones to the petitioner herein worth around Rs. 63,000/- and in spite of the repeated requests, the petitioner who was the accused failed to pay the amount. It is further alleged that as the said Uma Maheswar is unable to pay back debts incurred at Dhone disgusted with the life, poured petrol on his person on 29-4-99 and committed suicide. Thereafter, a case was registered under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner stating that he was responsible for committing suicide by P. Umamaheswar. The police have investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet and the same is numbered as PRC 20/2000 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. These proceedings are being assailed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the petitioner towards the said Umamaheswar cannot amount to inducement, or abetting or aiding the commission of an offence of suicide. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a decision reported in V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 470 (A.P.), and also another decision reported in Swamy Prahladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438.
3. Before adverting to the said contentions, it is necessary to have a glance at Sections 306 and 107 IPC. Sections 306 and 107 IPC read as follows :
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.'
107. A person abets the doing of a thing who-
(i) instigates that person to do that thing.
(ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
(iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
4. It is clearly stated in a decision (1 supra) as to what act amounts to aiding, abetting etc. The relevant portions at paras 4, 5 and 6 read as follows:
4. 'Abetment' in Section 306 IPC has to be understood with reference to its definition given in Section 107 I.P.C. While considering the scope of Section 107 IPC the Supreme Court in C.B.I. K. v. V.C. Shukla : 1998CriLJ1905 , observed, in para 50 at page 1423 as follows:
'...a person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses:
(i) instigates that person to do that thing.
(ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
So far as the first two clauses are concerned it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. For understanding the word 'aid' in the third clause it would be advantageous to see Explanation 2 in Section 107 IPC, which reads thus:
'Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act'.It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence...'
Clauses (i) and (ii) extracted above do not apply to this case because no 'instigation' by or 'conspiracy' between the petitioner and the other accused is alleged by the prosecution. The third clause also is not attracted because no 'aid' was given by the petitioner to the deceased when she committed suicide. Aiding suicide by a person can only be by positive acts of assisting in procuring the material required for suicide, like a person supplying rope or other material for hanging, when a person expresses his desire to commit suicide by hanging, or supplying weapon or material like drugs, poison, etc., when the person intending to commit suicide asks such aid, or if a person suggests the modes in which suicide can be committed like jumping into a river, lake or well, etc., to a person who intends to commit suicide.
5. In Sai Ram v. State of U.P. (AIR 1975 SC 125), the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the crime could not have been committed' without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107 IPC. Various High Courts have taken a view that merely because a person committed suicide by feeling insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or utterances made by the accused, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC. In Devraj v. State of H.P. (1991 (3) Crimes 383), a partner in a firm committed suicide due to the other partners [accused] taking away large sums of money out of partnership fund for various purposes and their not rendering an account to the deceased, and for not permitting the deceased utilizing the projects. The other partners in the firm, who are accused of an offence under Section 306 IPC for the suicide of the deceased, were held to be not guilty of such offence. In Alka Grewal v. State of M.P. (2000 Crl.L.J. 672), the woman was held to be not guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, for her husband committing suicide, after feeling insulted and humiliated due to her immoral conduct. The Court specifically held that though she may be the cause for suicide of her husband, she cannot be said to have abetted his suicide. In State of Gujarat v. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta (1999 Crl.L.J. 736), the publishers and others responsible for publication of a defamatory article are held to be not guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, for the defamed person's suicide on feeling humiliated due to the defamatory publication. V. Adinarayana v. State of A.P. (2000 CrL.L.J. 1182), is a case where a woman committed suicide when the accused threatened her that he would reveal her illicit connection to her husband. The accused was held to have not committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1996 Crl.L.J. 894), held that merely because the deceased woman stated in her dying declaration that she was harassed by the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC.
6. It should be noted that 'Suicide' is not an offence, obviously because the person that committed suicide is not available to undergo the trial and punishment, but abetment of suicide, and its attempt, are made offences under Sections 306 and 309 IPC respectively. From a reading of the old case law under Section 306 IPC, it can be seen that Section 306 was intended to coyer cases of people instigating a Hindu Widow to commit 'Sati' i.e., wife burning herself in the funeral pyre of her husband, which was prevalent at that time. When suicides by married women, due to harassment by their husbands and in-laws increased in an alarming proportion in the country, obviously finding that the provisions in the IPC are not covering such suicides, the Parliament steppted in 1983 and introduced Section 498-A in IPC and Section 113-A in the Evidence Act, enabling courts to draw a presumption of abetment to commit suicide by the wife, if the husband and his relatives subjected her to cruelty within 7 years of her marriage. Subsequently, Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act also were introduced. Therefore, now, in case a married woman commits suicide, within 7 years of her marriage due to harassment by her husband or his relatives, by virtue of Section 113-A of Evidence Act only Section 306 would come into operation, but not otherwise.
5. In this case, there is no intentional aiding, abetting or inducement to commit suicide. The material is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. In view of my finding I state that the proceedings are liable to be quashed, since the acts mentioned in the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. In that view of the matter, the proceedings are quashed.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed.