ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision against the Order 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in ST No.130/2013 whereby the charge under section 306 I.P.C. is framed against the applicant. 2. The prosecution’s case in short is that on 31.3.2013 the deceased Gandharva Singh killed his wife Sita Bai and thereafter, he committed suicide. After 3-4 months of the incident, the police registered a case against the applicant on the basis of the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased that the applicant had illicit relations with the deceased Sita Bai and due to that activity one daughter of Sita Bai had also committed suicide in the past. Due to the activities of the applicant the deceased killed his wife and thereafter, he committed suicide. It is also stated by the relatives, including Sadhana Singh, daughter of the deceased, that the applicant was giving a threat to the deceased that he would be falsely implicated in a false case. 3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is settled view of Hon’ble the apex Court that for framing of the charges entire prosecution evidence be considered as it is and if in absence of any rebuttal the accused can be convicted for a particular offence then charge of that offence shall be framed. In the present case, no case was registered for the suicide committed by the daughter of the deceased Sita Bai whereas, the same circumstances where there against the applicant. It is alleged against the applicant that he had illicit relations with the deceased Sita Bai. Some witnesses including Sadhana Singh have stated that the applicant gave a threat to the deceased to implicate him falsely in any case but, neither by that threat nor by the fact of illicit relation of the applicant with the deceased Sita Bai the applicant abated the deceased to commit suicide. The overt acts as alleged against the applicant do not fall within the purview of section 107 or 109 of I.P.C. and therefore, prima facie no offence under section 306 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The overt acts as alleged against the applicant do not fall within the purview of section 107 or 109 of I.P.C. and therefore, prima facie no offence under section 306 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. If there was illicit relation of the applicant with the wife of the deceased then he could lodge an FIR against the applicant with the help of the deceased Sita Bai and he would have filed an applicant for divorce or that he could get rid of his wife Sita Bai, if she was interested in the applicant but, the deceased did not take any legal step to that effect and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant did not leave any option to the deceased except to commit suicide. Morally, the applicant could be wrong that he had illicit relations with a married woman. However, the various legal courses were available to the deceased to prosecute the applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that by merely having relations with the wife, he would commit suicide. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion prima facie, no offence under section 306 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant though the prosecution’s evidence is considered as it is in its entirety. The trial Court has committed an error of law in framing the charge under section 306 of I.P.C. against the applicant. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted and hence it is hereby allowed. The imipugned order dated 23.10.2013 is hereby set aside. The applicant is discharged from the charge of section 306 I.P.C. 4. The copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and to drop the proceedings against the applicant.