JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revisions are directed against the order of the learned Sessions udge, Sawai Madhopur dated February 4, 1984, framing charge under Sections 36, 330 and 342 IPC against the petitioners. 2. Brief facts leading this case are that one FIR was lodged at Police Station Sawai Madhopur against the petitioners on August 17, 1983. According to the prosecution case the petitioner Ram Babu, who was maternal brother of Mohan (deceased), made efforts for getting Mohan employed on work charge basis under the subordination of petitioner Gautam Raj Mehta. Mohan was accordingly given the appointment on work-charge basis in the office of Forest Department, Sawai Madhopur One Shri Bhagwan Singh Nathawat, who was a Ranger, was staying at the quarter of Gautam Raj Mehta and in his attache one Tape-recorder, to pents and three were lying in the room. Mohan, who was working on work-charge basis, entered the room and stole away these articles. Shri Bhagwan Singh brought the fact of theft to the notice of Shri Gautam Raj Mehta. This theft is alleged to have been committed on August 15, 1983 by Mohan. The petitioner Ram Babu when came to know about all these facts, he was shocked by the behaviour of Mohan. It is alleged that both the petitioners took Mohan to his village Kawad and narrated the entire facts to the father of Mohan. Mohan alongwith his father and uncle Dwarka Prasad came back to the Forest quarter where Mohan was again asked about the stolen articles. On August 16, 1983, Mohans father and uncle returned to their village to bring other villagers to settle the matter. The prosecution story further is that on August 16,1983. Mohan stated that these articles were lying in Jatwara, a suburb of Sawai Madhopur. On this Jagan Sahai and Mahesh took Mohan to Jatwara on their cycle, and when they came to Man-town market, Mohan stated that he wanted to make water. Mohan thereafter jumped into a well where electric motor was fixed. Jagan Sahai went inside the well to rescue Mohan but his attempt fell in vain. Thereafter Mohan was taken to the hospital where Mohan was declared / dead. An FIR in these circumstances was lodged against present petitioners and a case was registered under sections 306, 330 and 342 IPC. Jagan Sahai went inside the well to rescue Mohan but his attempt fell in vain. Thereafter Mohan was taken to the hospital where Mohan was declared / dead. An FIR in these circumstances was lodged against present petitioners and a case was registered under sections 306, 330 and 342 IPC. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan in the court of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments framed charges under the above mentioned sections against the petitioners. In these circumstances, Ram Babu and Gautam Raj Mehta has filed these two separate revisions challenging the framing of charges against them. 3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence on record arid the Charge is totally groundless. It is submitted that there was no instigation from, the side of the petitioners for committing suicide by Mohan. There was no iota of evidence in this regard. The petitioners had not Mohan at the time when he committed suicide, he was at that time being accompanied by Jagan Sahai and Mahesh and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners had in any manner instigated or aided Mohan in committing suicide. As regards the offences under section 330 and 342 IPC learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that they were not challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge for these two offences. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that there is evidence on record to show that the petitioners had spoken the following words to Mohan:- 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 6. So far as petitioner Gautam Raj Mehta is concerned, he is admittedly not related to Mohan and there was no question of his telling to Mohan that he was related to him and his act had defamed him and as such it was better that he would die. Even so far as Ram Babu is concerned, it has not been stated in the FIR that he told such words to Mohan. That apart, in my view, even if such words were told by Ram Babu, it cannot be considered sufficient for instigating Mohan to commit suicide in the facts and circumstances of this case. Even so far as Ram Babu is concerned, it has not been stated in the FIR that he told such words to Mohan. That apart, in my view, even if such words were told by Ram Babu, it cannot be considered sufficient for instigating Mohan to commit suicide in the facts and circumstances of this case. There is no other evidence except the above statement made by Ram Babu and this cannot lead to the inference that by telling these words, the petitioner Ram Babu could have any knowledge at all that Mohan would commit suicide. The act of committing suicide by Mohan in this case cannot be considered as having any proximity or as a consequence or result of uttering any word by the accused petitioners. In Mst. Jeet Kaur v. The State of Rajasthan : 1978 WLN (UC) 53, the accused retorted that if Sahab Kaur was the true daughter of her father she might commit suicide by burning herself. The accused further told Sahab Kaur that she might take the match box and Kerosene oil available in the kitchen. After 8 or 10 minutes she heard the cries of Sahab Kaur that she was being burnt. On the basis of the above statement made by the accused it was observed as under : "That apart it is extremely doubtful even the mere retort by the accused as alleged by the prosecution and sought to be proved by the three eye witnesses would amount to abetment. There are no reasons to believe that when the accused gave a retort to Sahab Kaur that she might commit suicide she has no reason to believe or had the necessary mensrea that Sahab Kaur would commit suicide on mere retort or she would instigate to commit suicide. I failed to understand how the mere retort by the accused would instigate Sahab Kaur to commit suicide." Thus, in my view, the charge under section 306 IPC framed against the petitioners is totally ground-less and no case is made out, even prima facie, for framing such charge under section 306 IPC against the petitioners. Both these revisions are thus allowed in part, the charge under section 306 IPC framed against the petitioners is quashed. Both these revisions are thus allowed in part, the charge under section 306 IPC framed against the petitioners is quashed. The petitioner would now be tried for offences under sections 330 and 342 IPC in accordance with law by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, who had committed the case to the court of Sessions.Both Revisions allowed Partly. *******