ORDER Usha Shukla, J. 1. Nidhi Agrawal was the wife of Mohanlal Agrawal applicant No. 3. She committed suicide in July, 1997, two years after her marriage. Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg framed a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants, who are her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. An alternative charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against applicants No. 2 and 3 who are sister-in-law and husband of the deceased. 2. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that after the deceased had set herself on fire, she had made a dying declaration in the hospital in which she had stated that her relations with her in-laws were good. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded on the same day also there are no allegations against any of the applicants. Hence there was no ground for framing a charge against any of the applicants. 3. We have heard Counsel for both sides and have also perused copies of the documents filed with the petition. It is true that the dying declaration does not implicate any of the applicants. But we do not agree that this is a decisive factor for framing a charge. We find that during investigation the statements of Anarkali Agrawal, Jharna Agrawal and Rakesh Agrawal were also recorded by the Police. They are the mother, younger sister and brother of the deceased. They have categorically stated that Nidhi was being continuously harassed and ill-treated in her matrimonial home. She used to complain about this to her mother. Her mother has spoken about the mental torture she was sufferingat the hands of the applicants. Her sister Jharna Agrawal has given an eye-witness account of the ill-treatment and physical violence meted out to her sister when she had gone to her on a short visit. Rakesh Agrawal has also spoken about the sufferings of his sister Nidhi. Such consistent course of maltreatment driving a woman to commit suicide would be covered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and it cannot, therefore, be said that there was no material to frame a charge for abetment of suicide. It was not at the stage of the charge that the Sessions Judge was required to assess and evaluate the dying declaration of the deceased. It was not at the stage of the charge that the Sessions Judge was required to assess and evaluate the dying declaration of the deceased. The value of the dying declaration depends on many factors and it can only be determined on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced at the trial that the dying declaration was reliable and trustworthy and was made without tutoring in a fit condition of mind. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant cited Pamohram v. State of M.P., 1971 J.L.J. Short Note 80. But in that case the only evidence against the husband was that he was in love with another girl and did not desire that his wife should live with him. The evidence of ill-treatment consisted of only one incident when he had expressed that it would be better if his wife died. It was under these circumstances that it was held that there was no evidence to substantiate a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly Mahendra Singh's case AIR 1995 S.C. Weekly 4570, is also distinguishable on facts. The only evidence in that case consisted of the dying declaration and there was no other evidence from which abetment could be inferred. Such is not the case here. 5. But we find that the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also do not contain any allegations of demand of dowry. Learned Counsel for the State also could not support the framing of charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, quash the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code but confirm the order framing charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.