1. The applicant has preferred this revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5th February, 2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in ST No.223/07, whereby ordered for framing of the charge under section 306 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.1.2005 at village Rannod one Kalicharan S/o Bhaiyalal Soni committed suicide by hanging himself. On information, Police Rannod had registered an inquest report and started investigation. On search, a suicidal note has been found in the pocket of deceased Kalicharan, wherein he stated that for his suicide accused Munna Chowdhary and Hartoon Singh should be held liable because they had forced him for payment of due amount which he had taken as loan from some person of Banskhedi. On the basis of this suicidal note a case under section 306 IPC had been registered by the police. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to the Government Hospital where the concerning Autopsy Surgeon performed the post-mortem and opined that deceased Kalicharan died due to asphyxia on account of hanging by neck. The police had prepared spot map, recorded the statements of various witnesses and arrested the accused and after investigation charge-sheet had been filed.

3. Learned trial Court, after perusal of the entire documentary evidence on record, by the impugned order came to the conclusion that prima facie charge under section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant and ordered for framing of the aforesaid charge; feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred this revision.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as public prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the main document of the prosecution is the only suicidal note alleged to be written by deceased Kalicharan before committing the suicide, wherein he only stated that accused Munna Chowdhary and Hartoon Singh should be held responsible for his death because accused Munna Chowdhary had forced him for payment of Rs. 1,55,000/-, threatened him for this recovery and also beat him by means of hand on the cheek. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is nowhere stated in this alleged suicidal note that the applicant-accused had ever instigated deceased Kalicharan for commission of suicide and if the applicant-accused had demanded any loan amount from the deceased then by his act itself the ingredient of instigation for commission of suicide is lacking and the charge under section 306 IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly ordered for framing of the charge under section 306 IPC. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of Hon 'ble the apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v.State of Madhya Pradesh [2002(2) JLJ 275=AIR 2002 SC 1998], and other various decisions in the case of Ashok Kumar Sawadiya v. State of M.P [2001(1) MPWN 93]; Abdul Hanifv. State of M.P [2002(II) MPWN 12]; Kashiram v. State of M.P [2006(1) MPWN 106]; Prakashchand v.State of M.P [2007(1) MPWN 20]; Pramod Kumar and another v. State of M.P [2007(II) MPWN 26]; Devendra Singh v. State of M.P [2007(1II) [2009(111)MPWN 95]; and Nirmal Jain and others v. State of M.P. [2008(II) MPWN 66]. In all these decisions it is laid down that if the instigation for commission of suicide is not proved by the prosecution then certainly the charge under section 306 IPC cannot be framed.

6. Learned public prosecutor for the State supported the impugned order and submits that on perusal of the alleged suicidal note written by deceased Kalicharan the instigation part by the applicant-accused is prima facie proved. The trial Court has rightly believed the aforesaid suicidal note and rightly ordered for framing of the charge against the applicant and no illegality is apparent, on which basis the