M.Cr.C. No.6231/2011 10.10.2011 Shri L.L. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the applicant-State. He is heard. O R D E R This petition is u/s. 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed against the judgment of acquittal of the accused. 2. The accused was prosecuted for offences punishable u/s. 306 and 201 of I.P.C. on the allegation that he instigated his wife Late Geetabai to commit suicide on 11.6.2010. 3. The entire prosecution case is based on allegation that accused used physical violence against his wife as a result, she committed suicide. Further charge against the accused was that he caused disappearance of evidence of the offence. 1 4. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Judge found that no offence either u/s. 306 or 201 of I.P.C. was made out against the respondent and as a result, he was acquitted of both the offences by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition. 5. We have heard Shri Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate at length. Perused the record of trial Court. 6. In order to prove offences u/s. 306 it is essential for prosecution to show that the act of respondent falls within the purview of any of the three clauses of Section 107 of the Penal Code. To constitute abetment or in order that a person may be convicted, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove – (a) that the accused aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of principal offence; (b) that the principal offence was in fact committed; 2 and (c) that he had intent to aid or encourage the commission of principal offence. In other word, abetyment can be constituted by (1) instigation, (2) conspiracy, or (3) intentional aid. Abetment implies a certain degree of activity in the abettor. An accused can be charged with abetment only if instigate any person to a criminal action or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission for the doing a thing or engages somebody with a purpose to do an illegal act. In other words, a person is said to 'instigate' any other act, when he actively suggest or stimulates him to act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. In the case in hand, prosecution evidence do not establish these elements and their conspicuous absence, learned trial Judge has rightly 3 found and held that the respondent could not be held guilty of an offence punishable u/s. 306 of I.P.C. 7. So far as Section 201 is concerned, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the offence in respect of which evidence made to disappear was committed. The idea is As has been pointed out hereinabove, there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was involved in the commission of principal offence punishable u/s. 306 of I.P.C. Once it is held that no offence was committed by respondent, it is difficult to bring home the charge against him u/s. 201 of I.P.C. There is no evidence that the respondent acted with intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. In the case in hand, prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable u/s. 306 of I.P.C., 4 therefore, respondent was rightly acquitted of the u/s. 201 of the I.P.C. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit and substance in this petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed summarily. (S.K. SETH, J.) Alok/ 5