JUDGMENT The petitioners are the husband, parents-in-law, and co-wife of Smt. Sadhna, who committed suicide on 30.9.1996 by hanging herself. A charge has been framed against them under sections 306 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code in this connection, which they have challenged in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was no material to frame a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code because the only allegation against them was that the petitioner No. 1 had taken petitioner No. 4 as his second wife in June, 1994, and thereafter they started ill-treating Sadhna. He placed reliance on Panchram & Samailal v. State of M.P. [1971 JLJ Short Note 80]; Swamy Prahalad Das v. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438] and Mahendra Singh & another v. Gayatribai [ 1996 CrLJ 894 ]. ********************************************************** Learned counsel for the State, however, vehemently argued that the documents made available to the trial Court under section 173 CrPC included a number of letters written by the deceased to her parents brother and others, on her parental side. Besides there is oral evidence of mother, father, brothers, other relatives and neighbourers of the deceased, who have all stated that the petitioners persistently taunted the deceased for not being able to beget any children and treated her with cruelty causing all sorts of harassment to her and created such an atmosphere which drove her to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the State relied on 1989 CrLR (M.P.) 494 (Ashok Kumar and another v. State of M.P.); 1989 CrLJ 242 (Girja Shankar and others v. State of M.P.) and AIR 1991 SC 1532 (The State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and others). Learned counsel for the State distinguished the cases cited by the petitioners. It was pointed out that in 1971 JLJ Short Note 80 (Supra) there was only one incident when the husband had expressed that it would be better if his wife die. In 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 (Supra) too, there was only one occasion when the accused uttered that the deceased should go and die and in 1996 CrLJ 894 (Supra) also it was found that there was no other evidence besides the dying declaration of the deceased alleging harassment by the accused. In 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 (Supra) too, there was only one occasion when the accused uttered that the deceased should go and die and in 1996 CrLJ 894 (Supra) also it was found that there was no other evidence besides the dying declaration of the deceased alleging harassment by the accused. It was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases that a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustained. But in the instant case there is voluminous evidence to show that not only had the husband married again, he, his parents and the second wife persisted in maltreatment of the deceased and by systematic and continuous course of harassment forced her into suicide. We have given careful consideration to the documents available on record and the arguments advanced on both sides. Without entering into the merits of the case in detail, it can safely be said that there was sufficient material to frame a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code because there is enough prima facie evidence to show a course of conduct indulged in by the petitioners since the re-marriage of the husband which led the deceased to take the extreme step of ending her life. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.