JUDGMENT The husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of deceased Mayabai have filed this revision petition against the order of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, framing charge against them under sections 306/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 Nanhelal had taken Mayabai as his wife in January, 1988. She committed suicide by setting herself on fire on 31.3.1998. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that there was no basis to frame charges against them because there is no material about abetment of suicide or demand of dowry. Reliance was placed on Girjashanker and others v. State of M.P. [1989 CrLJ NOC 52]; State of M.P. v. Hakamsingh Khumansingh Lodhi and others [ 1995 JLJ 384 = 1995 MPLJ 828 ] and Devisingh Ratan Singh v. State of M.P. [ 1995 JLJ 233 = 1995 MPLJ 757 ]. Learned counsel for the State, however, argued that the cases cited were distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, there is enough material under section 173 CrPC to establish a prima facie case about the willful conduct of the petitioner creating a situation of no return compelling the wife to end her life. Apart from the statements of her mother, father and other relative of the deceased recorded under section 16 I CrPC, there is also evidence of oral and written dying declarations of alleging continuous ill-treatment of the deceased by the petitioners. The matters were so bad that the deceased was driven to make a report to the police on 30.5.1996 that her husband and sisters-in-law wanted to get rid of her and were abusing and ill-treating her. Reliance was placed on The State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and others [ AIR 1991 SC 1532 ] and Girjashanker and others v. State of M.P. [ 1989 CrLJ 242 ] in support of the contention that the instigation or abetment may also be by conduct and creating a situation by willful conduct, driving the woman to commit suicide is clearly covered under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that it must be a queer coincidence that the first wife of the petitioner No. 1 committed suicide. We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both side and have also perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that it must be a queer coincidence that the first wife of the petitioner No. 1 committed suicide. We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both side and have also perused the documents on record. We are satisfied that the documents filed under section 173 CrPC shows persistence course of maltreatment which makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners about cruelty and abetment of suicide punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. It must, however, be observed that the charges as framed appear to be defective. The charge mentions the period of maltreatment from 31.3.1998 to 3.4.1998 while Mayabai had died on 31.3.1998 itself. The trial Court should also consider whether there is sufficient material to incorporate dowry death in the charge. The charge should be suitably amended in the light of the aforesaid observations.