JUDGMENT :

(Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.) :

1. Through the medium of this judgment, it is proposed to decide the above titled criminal revision petition against the order dated 28.10.2010 ('impugned order') passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi ('Trial Court') in Sessions Trial Case No. 32/2010 titled 'State v. Suram Singh & Ors.' arising out of FIR No. 79/2010 registered at Police Station Reasi for the commission of offence punishable U/S 306 RPC.

2. Vide impugned order, the trial court had discharged all the accused from the charge of commission of offences U/S 306 RPC. The prosecution case was that one Shamsher Singh S/o Lachman Singh R/o Kolsar had attempted suicide on 04.05.2010 by consuming some poisonous substance, became unconscious and succumbed at Reasi Hospital as he was chased by the respondents for having abducted their daughter Babli Devi.

3. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner-State on the following grounds:

"a. That the order impugned is contrary to law, against the facts of the case and has been passed without appreciating the legal position on the matter and needs to be set-aside.

b. That the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the material in the shape of documentary as well as oral evidence and the statements of the important witnesses which are yet to be recorded by the learned Trial Court while passing the order impugned.

c. That the prosecution had established the case against the respondents/accused by adducing documentary, as well as oral evidence which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to guilt the respondents but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case while discharging them.

d. That the trial court has taken hyper technical approach. The direct and circumstantial evidence have sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondents/accused. The order on this count is liable to be set-aside."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State argued that the Trial court has passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner and the respondents, who had been accused of a heinous offences of committing abetment to suicide wherein a precious life had been lost, decided the case without putting the same to trial and the respondents/accused were discharged from the commission of the offences punishable U/S 306 RPC without any valid and legal reasons. He has further argued that the prosecution had placed on record sufficient evidence to connect the accused 'prima facie' with the commission of the offence punishable U/S 306 RPC as almost all the witnesses had stated that deceased, on being challenged and threatened of his life and after recovery of Babli Devi, who had been abducted by him from a Jungle, got so frightened that out of this fear psychosis, he committed the suicide by consuming poison. As such, accused should have been chargesheeted for the commission of the aforesaid offence and the prosecution should have been allowed to prove its case to bring home the charge against the respondents. He has finally argued that the impugned order be set-aside directing the trial court to chargesheet the accused so that they may be brought to justice.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the impugned order has been passed perfectly in consonance with law as the reason for the deceased to commit suicide cannot be, in any manner, assigned to the respondents. The only accusation against the respondents is that the deceased who was alleged to have kidnapped his