( 1. ) APPLICANT Dr. Mangleshwar Singh is aggrieved by the order dated 3-10-96 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in S. T. No. 79/95, whereby he has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC.

( 2. ) THE facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of. the prosecution is that on 26-2-95 at the house of Raghunath Singh arrangement of marriage of his son was going on, Raghunath Singh found that the currency notes of Rs. 800/- were missing from the pocket of his coat, he inquired from his brother applicant-Dr. Mangleshwar Singh who raised suspicion upon deceased Hiralal, who pleaded ignorance. Deceased Hiralal was serving in the house of Raghunath. Further the case of prosecution is that applicant admonished Hiralal and threatened him by saying that a report shall be lodged in police regarding theft committed by him, thereafter Hiralal went to the house of his sister Kalui and uncle Ram Ganesh and brought them to the house of Raghunath and in presence of these persons returned Rs. 800/-to Raghunath. In the meantime a dehati nalishi under Section 380 was lodged by Raghunath. It is also stated that the applicant caused Marpeet and also gave threat, Hiralal felt deeply depressed as he was caught committing theft of Rs. 800/- as a result of which he went towards Belauhi water-fall and committed suicide. His dead-body was recovered on 12-3-95. Earlier on 27-2-95, when Hiralal was not found by his family members the matter was reported to police and the report was registered as missing person 4/95.

( 3. ) POLICE recorded statements of Shyamkali, Mahesh Yadav, Smt. Sukhrajua, Radhikabai, Kalui Ram Ganesh and Sahdev under Section 161, Cr. PC. All these witnesses are related to deceased Hiralal, from the statements of these witnesses it is gathered that as applicant caused Marpeet, Hiralal felt deeply depressed and committed suicide.

( 4. ) PROSECUTION filed challan purporting to be under Section 306, IPC against applicant. The learned Trial Judge framed charge punishable under Section 306, IPC against the applicant which he denied. The petitioner has assailed the said order by filing present revision petition.

( 5. ) SHRI Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if the entire case of prosecution is taken into consideration, no case is made out for framing charge under Section 306, IPC. He has placed reliance upon a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Sanju v. State of MP. , he has also placed reliance upon Swamy Prahalad-das v. State ofm. P. , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, Ramnaresh v. State of M. P. , 2002 (2) M. P. H. T. 183 = 2002 (2) MPLJ 360, Vedprakash v. State of M. P. , 1995 MPLJ 458, Utkal v. State of M. P. , 1997 (2) MPU Note 32, Rajalal @ Kamlesh v. State of M. P. , 1999 (1) MPLJ Note 43. On the basis of these authorities he contended that ingredient of Section 107, IPC is not made out in the charge-sheet and therefore, no charge under Section 306, IPC can be framed against him. Shri Wakil Khan, learned Panel Lawyer has contended that the learned Trial Court had not committed any mistake in framing the charge and revision deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in Dhularam v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr. LJ 4057, he has also placed reliance on State of M. P. v. S. B. Johari, 2000 (3) M. P. H. T. 164 = AIR 2000 SC 665, Omwati v. State, through Delhi Admn. and Ors. , (2001) 4 SCC 333.

( 6. ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 7. ) PROSECUTION has filed challan against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, which reads as under :-

"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 fin