JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Revision filed by the accused persons is filed against the order dated 23.7.2001, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, ordered to frame charges u/ss. 498-A & 306 IPC in Sessions Case No. 143/98. 2. Briefly narrated the prosecution case is that Smt. Anita (since deceased) was married to accused-Manohar Kumar on 20.6.1991 and she expired at her in-laws house on2.8.1998, by consuming some poison. Such information in writing was submitted at Police Station on the same day by accused-Manohar Kumar. On 3.8.1998, Sohan Lal, brother of the deceased submitted a written report at the same Police Station Govindgarh, with the allegations that after some time of the marriage of his sister, her father-in-law Mali Ram, mother inlaw Smt. Bhanwari Devi, husband Manohar and younger brother of husband Dharmendra started making demands of dowry and treated her with cruelty from time to time. Certain demands were fulfilled. It was also averred that this is not a case of suicide but a case of murder. On 4.8.1998, Uma Shanker, father of the deceased submitted another report at the same police station with the similar allegations along with some other allegations with regard to demand of Hero Honda Motor Cycle and some money from time to time. 3. The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences u/s. 498-A & 304-B IPC against all the four accused persons. The case came up for trial before the learned trial Judge, who vide impugned order framed charges u/ss. 498-A & 306 IPC. All the accused persons were discharged for the offence u/s. 304-B IPC. 4. Before adverting the arguments advanced, the provisions of Secs. 306 & 498-A IPC are reproduced as under : 306. Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, who- ever 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. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty': (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 5. Learned counsel for the accused persons contended that there is no evidence against the three accused except the husband that they subjected the deceased to cruelty with a view to meet any unlawful demand of any dowry and at the most the husband can be charged only u/s. 498-A IPC. Next contention raised was that there is no evidence to show that any of the accused persons or all the four accused persons ever abetted the commission of suicide and mere quarrel at home, does not amount to abetment for commission of suicide. Learned counsel referred the entire statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and placed reliance upon following judgments : (i) In Satpal v. State of Haryana, 1999 Cr.L.J. 596 , it was held that except the sole statement of brother of deceased, there was no convincing evidence to hold that there was demand of dowry and deceased was harassed in connection with such demand. It was also held that accidental consumption of poison and administration of such poison by some body is ruled out, hence case of suicide is not made out. (ii) In Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 358 , on the basis of the evidence that brother abused his brother as he could not pay his share of the money and brother committed suicide by felling into the well, it was held that there is no aiding or instigation to die. (iii) In Satvir Singh & Ors. (iii) In Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2001 Cr.L.J. 4625 , Hon'ble apex Court held that Section 306 IPC renders a person liable who abets commission of suicide and does not penalise an abatement to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide. (iv) In Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., 2001 Cr.L.J. 4700 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case of dowry death, conviction can not be sustained merely on vague and inconsistent statement of interested witnesses being parents and brother of the deceased. (v) In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr., 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 141 , during quarrel the accused-appellant remarked the deceased `to go & die', deceased committed suicide at his home, it was held that suicide was not the direct result of the words uttered and there was no mens rea. (vi) In Gautam Raj Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 646 , it was held that there should be proximity between words uttered and commission of suicide. Similar view was taken in Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 620 , in Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1995 (1) Raj. 84 , Subodh Garg v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (23) R.Cr.C. 362 , Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of Rajasthan, R.Cr.C. 1998 (1) 745 and Brij Lal & Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1984 (2) Crimes 987 . It was also contended that no independent witness supported the prosecution case and only on the statements of parents and brothers, conviction for dowry death can not take place. Reliance is placed upon Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. Raj. 731 and Swaroop Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 850 . Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and argued that there was sufficient evidence to frame the charges. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the judgments cited here-in-above. Section 227 Cr.P.C. provides that if, upon consideration of the record and the documents and after hearing the submissions, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused. Section 228 Cr.P. C. makes a provision that if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion. Section 227 Cr.P.C. provides that if, upon consideration of the record and the documents and after hearing the submissions, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused. Section 228 Cr.P. C. makes a provision that if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion. that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the charges shall be framed. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded. No doubt some of the witnesses did not give any positive evidence with regard to demands of dowry and torture but Sohanlal, brother of the deceased, Kailash Chand and Bherulal, both uncle of the deceased, Suit. Rukmani, Smt. Ratna, Smt. Annu Devi, Lallu Prasad and Uma Shanker father of the deceased stated against all the four accused persons in their statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. In view of the statements of these witnesses, the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused persons can not be accepted that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, persons. In view of the entire evidence available on the record, it appears a case wherein the accused persons should be put to trial and no case is made out for discharge. Further, it is not a case of one single act of cruelty but cruelty from time to time after marriage. 6. Consequently this revision alongwith stay application is dismissed. Any observations made by this Court would have no bearing at the time of decision of this case. Since the incident relates to August 1998, the learned trial Judge is directed to decide this case as early as possible preferable within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Record of the trial Court be sent back within five day from today.Revision petition dismissed. *******