The judgment established the importance of prima facie evidence in determining the applicability of charges under different sections of the IPC.

( 1 ) THIS criminal Revision impugns the order dated 16-5-2002, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S. T. No. 32/2002, whereby he has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 306, 498-A and 509, IPC.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, deceased Dharmesh and his wife Sandhya were the son and daughter-in-law of the applicant. They had committed suicide by consuming pesticide and they were declared dead in the hospital. As per materials on record, the prosecution submitted a challan for charge under Section 306, IPC on the ground that the applicant used to harass the daughter-in-law Sandhya and consequently, also used to harass his son Dharmesh. The precise allegation against the applicant is that he is a pervert who used to somdomise his domestic servant, Vishal and Vishal in turn took liberty to Sodomise Saurav, grand son of the applicant, which caused a lot of mental agony and trauma to both the deceased, being the parents of Saurav, who, resultantly, committed suicide. As regards the charge under Section 498-A , IPC, the prosecution has collected the materials to the effect that within seven years of her marriage deceased Sandhya was driven to commit suicide by wilful conducts of the applicant , who wanted to establish an illicit relationship with her, his daughter-in-law. At one point of the time, he compelled her to take off all the ornaments given by him in her marriage and as per the statements of witnesses. She used to feel insecured in the presence of the applicant, in the house, who would embarass her by taking baths in her view in a naked posture. Therefore, deceased Sandhya was living under tremendous mental pressure which, prima facie, makes out an offence against the applicant under Section 498-A, IPC. Further for that reason, the prosecution put up a charge also under Section 509, IPC. Mr. Sohbit Aditya arguing for the applicant submits that from the materials available on record, an offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out as none of the ingredients of Section 107, IPC is attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to Mr. Aditya, there is no material to show that soon before the incident, the applicant by a positive act or suggestion had facilitated the commission of suicide by either of the deceased. Mr. Aditya cites a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SCW 2035 : (2002 Cri LJ 2796) in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and in terms thereof, further submits that there is no material to show that there was a direct incitemnt or mens rea on the part of the applicant which comes within the definition of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306, IPC. The learned counsel also cites another Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1983) 2 SCC 66 : (1983 Cri LJ 691) in the matter of Hasan Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which mandates that in the absence of material to substantiate the charge, the accused cannot be tried thereupon. Thirdly, to set up a ground that in this case the materials on record on being taking together, prima facie, do not disclose an offence and therefore, the accused ought not be tried upon the charges, the learned counsel cites a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1962 : (1990 Cri LJ 1869) in the matter of Niranjan Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja. Mr. Aditya also places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 1993 MPLJ 316 in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rikhiram and submits that the trial Court is not expected to act as post office. And further as the materials on record herein, as they are, without a rebuttal, would not lead to conviction of the accused-applicant, it would be a waste of public time and money to proceed with the trial. On the point of a charge under Section 498-A, IPC, Mr. Aditya, refers to and relies on a decision of this Court reported in 1994 MPLJ 40, which reiterates that the element