Judgment V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 4-9-96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 10/93 framing charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant accused. The order is assailed on the ground that no case whatever is made out. Even if the entire record in relation to the prosecution, presentation of challan is believed to be true. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order as wholly without jurisdiction and suffering from non-application of mind to the facts as revealed by the record. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 4-9-96, in so far as it frames charge against the applicant, is liable to be quashed. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition, stated briefly, are that the petitioner is a Factory Manager of a Co-operative Spinning Mill. Gangapur, District Bhilwara and was discharging his managerial duties in the year 1992 as also at the time when the incident giving rise to the present revision occurred. ( 3 ) ON 11-11-92, a First Information Report came to be lodged by one Mohan Das that at about 7. 00 PM one Panchanand alias Panchu Ram climbed a Neem Tree in the Factory field and fell down and is admitted to the hospital for futher treatment and thereafter, it was revealed that the man succumbed to the injuries caused to him by the fall. ( 4 ) IT is also on record that at about 6. 45 PM a telephonic message was received in the Police Station that one person who appears to be mentally retarded has climbed up a tree and is standing on a branch in a praying position. On the basis of these reportes, and the fact of death occurring subsequently, investigations were taken up by the police and several statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of various witnesses pertaining to the incident and, thereafter, on perusal of the record, the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4-9-96 framing a charge against the applicant under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It is this order which is assailed in the present petition by the petitioner. It is this order which is assailed in the present petition by the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the statements recorded by the police before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. are accepted as true and it assumed that the death of Panchu Ram was suicidal, there is no evidence on record or even averment on record, which will connect the applicant Factory Manager to the occurrence. It is, therefore, a case of non-application of mind to the facts on record, requiring interference by this Court in quashing the said charge. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel pointed out to me from the statement recorded under Section 164 that at least three of the witnesses have stated before the learned Magistrate that the accused jumped the Factory Gate, ran towards the rear gate, climbed up the Neem Tree and was standing in a praying position. It is also in the statement of these persons that in spite of several entreaties on their part, the deceased did not come down and did not speak anything and then he fell down which fall ultimately resulted in his death. ( 7 ) PROVISIONS of Section 306, with which the petitioner is charged, read thus :-306. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE. 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 fine. " ( 8 ) IN order to sustain the charge under this provision, firstly it must be prima facie apparent that some one has met suicidal death and the suicidal death occurred as a consequence of abetment by the accused. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the record as it stands, does not make out even a prima facie case that Panchu Ram met suicidal death. The possibility of accidental death not being overruled. Assuming for the sake of argument that the death is suicidal, prima facie case will have to be made out for framing charge of abetment so as to sustain a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, defines what is abetment. It reads thus :-107. ABETMENT OF A THING. Assuming for the sake of argument that the death is suicidal, prima facie case will have to be made out for framing charge of abetment so as to sustain a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, defines what is abetment. It reads thus :-107. ABETMENT OF A THING. A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. " ( 10 ) IN order to maintain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it shall, therefore, be necessary for the prosecution to establish prima-facie that a person has abeted the commission of suicide by the victim either by inspiration he commits suicide or by doing an act or omission to do an act illegally, whereby the victim was promoted to commit suicide immediately. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the fact of suicide is not even prima-facie suggested. Even if it is true to be so, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he had given night duty to the deceased for last three four months. It is nowhere alleged that the deceased was in any hurt by the transfer of duty or that he committed suicide because of his night duty. It is undisputed that it was the duty of the applicant as a Factory Manager to assign duties to workmen. It was in discharge of this duty of his that the Manager assigned night duty to the deceased Panchu Ram. None of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. said that Panchu Ram committed suicide because of his continuance on the night duty. In the absence of any such averment, it cannot be said that the petitioner has, in any manner, instigated commission of the suicide or has abeted commission of suicide by any act or omission on his part. P. C. said that Panchu Ram committed suicide because of his continuance on the night duty. In the absence of any such averment, it cannot be said that the petitioner has, in any manner, instigated commission of the suicide or has abeted commission of suicide by any act or omission on his part. ( 12 ) THE impugned order also deos not disclose any reason by which it can be suggested that there is a reasonable relationship between the death of Panchu Ram and functioning of the petitioner as Factory Manager of the Spinning Mill. In the absence of any such nexus or even causal connection, it is impermissible in law to charge a person with such serious crime, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of ten years. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India that prima-facie case and reasonable relationship with the incident will have to be seen before a charge is framed. From perusal of record of this case, I am firmly of the view that there is not even causal relationship between the suicide, if any, and the working of the petitioner as Manager of the Factory. Hence, the order dated 4-9-96 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. ( 13 ) IT is also remotely suggested that the deceased Panchu Ram was troubled by the attempts of some persons including one Mr. George to convert him to Christianity and that may be but one of the reasons for his jump from the tree. Even if this is assumed to be true, for which there is no basis in the record, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any attempt as he himself is a Hindu. This suggestion also, therefore, is of no consequence in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 14 ) IN the result, the revision application succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 4-9-96 is quashed in so far as it frames charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against the accused. .