JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2008 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 306, 376, I.P.C. and Section 3(2) and (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of the present petitioner is, that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner. Originally, father of the deceased has gave the report that his daughter herself told him that no one is responsible for her suicide. The allegation of rape has not been corroborated by any independent evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix is also not there. There is no evidence regarding abetment of the offence. 4. The evidence submitted after investigation goes to show that initially a report has been filed by the father of the deceased wherein it has been categorically stated that her daughter has told him that no one is responsible for her death and that she had taken insecticide at her own will. In the F.I.R. lodged by the husband of the deceased, it has been stated that poisonous material has been given to the deceased by the accused and a case of murder has been presented. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 306, I.P.C. saying that the present petitioner and others were demanding money from the deceased and omnibus allegation of rape has also been alleged. 5. Looking at the material variance between the evidence and the evidence collecting during investigation is hazy. The prosecution case, taking on face value, does not constitute any ingredient for the abetment of commission of suicide. If only money has been demanded from the deceased, it cannot be said that the present petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and there is no evidence regarding rape on the prosecutrix or murder of the deceased. Hence no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner. 6. There is also no evidence against the present petitioner that offences have been committed against the deceased on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Navratan Mal @ Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Raj. 6. There is also no evidence against the present petitioner that offences have been committed against the deceased on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Navratan Mal @ Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Raj. CANDID 369 wherein it has been held that when the case is of lending certain amount to the victim and he was persistently demanding from her said amount and the victim was not in a position to repay the amount, it was held that demanding of money given on loan was not an offence under any provision of law. 8. Hence looking at the above, there was no prima facie evidence against the present petitioner and charges framed under Sections 306 and 376, I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(2) and (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 9. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order qua the petitioner is hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged from the charges levelled against him.Revision allowed. *******