ORDER 1. This revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’ has been filed against the order dated 23.1.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No.125/2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen, by which the learned trial Court framed charges against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.2.2013 at about 7 o’clock an FIR was lodged whereby it is stated that one Jagdish Prasad committed suicide. The allegation against the applicants were that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased by demanding additional money from him inspite of making payment of actual borrowed money Rs.2.35 lacs. 3. After completion of investigation, the applicants were charge-sheeted. The learned trial Court vide impugned order levelled charges against the applicants as mentioned above, against which, the applicants preferred this revision. 4. Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that if the entire case of prosecution is taken into consideration, no offence is made out for framing any charge. He also submitted that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for prosecuting the accused has committed the offense or that charge is groundless, and for this limited purpose the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. He had placed reliance upon decisions of the apex Court on the following cases : (1) AIR 1972 SC 545 ; (2) AIR 1979 SC 366 ; (3) AIR 1977 SC 1489 ; (4) AIR 1990 SC 1962 ; (5)2000(8)JT 333 and (6) AIR 2000 SC 665 . 5. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge mechanically framed charges without appreciating the material on record which resulted in great prejudice and injustice to the applicants, therefore, impugned order is bad, improper, and incorrect and illegal therefore prayed for quashing and set aside the impugned order. 6. Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State vehemently opposed above contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and prays for dismissal of this revision. 7. 6. Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State vehemently opposed above contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and prays for dismissal of this revision. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after perusal of the record as well as the case diary, there is ample material to frame charges against the applicants as levelled by the impugned order. 8. The facts of this case in hand basically different as Jagdish Prasad was well qualified literate person and was posted as Assistant Grade 3 in Government College Gairatganj. 9. The case of the prosecution is not based only on the suicide note of Jagdish Prasad, but also based on the evidence collected by prosecution in form of the call details between the accused persons and Jagdish Prasad. Apart from above mentioned documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution is also based on the statement of witnesses particularly Nikhil, son of Jagdish Prasad and his wife Sunita Bai. 10. Apart from above mentioned documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution is also based on the statement of witnesses particularly Nikhil, son of Jagdish Prasad and his wife Sunita Bai. 10. Statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of witness Nikhil is important, hence are reiterated which reads as under : ^^esjs firk txnh’k izlkn egkfo|ky; esa fyfid ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA esjs firk iznhi Bkdqj ,oa Jhjke Bkdqj ls iSls fy, Fks fd esjs firk us mlds iSls 2 yk[k 35 gtkj :i;s nsdj iVk fn, Fks fdarq os nksauks esjs firk ls vkSj 3 yk[k :i;s dh eka¡x djrs jgs rax vkdj esjs firk us mUgsa ,d lkbZu fd;k gqvk pSd dksjk ns fn;k Fkk fd esjs firk dks vk, fnu vkdj 3 yk[k :i;s vkSj nsus dh ek¡x djrs jgs vkSj rjg&rjg ls /kedkrs jgs fd nksuks ?kj ij vkdj firkth ls 3 yk[k :i;s ek¡xrs Fks vkSj ns[k ysus dh /kedh nsdj pys tkrs FksA dy fnukad 13-2-2013 dh ‘kke dks djhcu 6%30 cts iznhi Bkdqj ,oa Jhjke Bkdqj esjs ?kj vk, firkth ls 3 yk[k :i;s ek¡xs firkth us iSls nsus esa vleFkZrk O;Dr dh rks mUgksaus esjs firkth dks xkyh&xykSp dj ukSdjh ls fudky nsus dh /kedh nh ftlls esjs firkth yfTtr eglwwl dj jgs FksA ‘kke dks esjs firkth eksVj lk;dy ysdj ?kj ls fudy x, jkr dks okil ?kj ugha vk,] lqcg yksxks }kjk firkth ds dslyh chM+ es egq, ds isM+ ls Qk¡lh ij yVds gksus dh lwpuk feyhA eSaus Hkh ekSds ij tkdj ns[kk ogk¡ vkSj Hkh yksx o iqfyl FkhA esjs firkth egq, dh isM+ dh Mkyh esa jLlh ls xys esa Qk¡lh dk Qank yxk, yVds gq, ejs feys uhps eksVj lk;dy [kM+h Fkh fd iqfyl us esjs lkeus firkth ds ‘ko dh iapk;rukek dk;Zokgh dhA firkth ds diM+ks dh ryk’kh dh rks isaV dh tsc esa firkth dk eksckbZy ,oa ‘kVZ dh tsc ls ,d lqlkbM+ ukssV feyk ftls iqfyl us eq>s fn[kk;k vkSj i<+k;k tks esjs firkth }kjk fy[kk gqvk gS] mUgha ds gLrk{kj gS] eSa mudh jkbfVxa igpkurk gw¡A lqlkbZM uksV esa iznhi dqekj Bkdqj vkSj Jhjke Bkdqj }kjk 3 yk[k :i;s vkSj ek¡xuk o pSd esa 8 yk[k :i;s dh jkf’k Hkjdj ukSdjh ls fudyokus dh /kedh nsdj izrkfM+r dj] dk ys[k fd;k gSA iznhi Bkdqj ,oa Jhjke Bkdqj us iSlksa dh ek¡x dks ysdj o /kedh nsdj esjs firkth dks izrkfM+r fd;k ftlls esjs firk us izrkM+uk ls rax vkdj o etcwj gksdj Qk¡lh yxkdj vkRegR;k dj yh gSA^^ 11. At the time of framing of charge, a Judge is not expected to make a roving inquiry in pros and cons of matter and weigh evidence. He has only to consider total effect of the evidence and document produced before him. Truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be judged at initial stage of trial. The test to be applied by the Court is whether there is sufficient ground to proceed and not for sufficient ground conviction. Strong suspicion about commission of offense and involvement of accused is sufficient to frame charge. While framing the charge, the Court, instead of considering the probative value of the material on record, should take them as they stand. At this stage, it is not to be seen as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. At this stage, a defense of an accused also cannot be considered. 12. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. 13. At this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. 14. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [ (1996)4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri.) 820], a three Judge Bench of the apex Court explained the meaning of the word “presume”. Referring to dictionary meanings of the said word, the Court observed thus : “…. if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 15. Whether or not the allegation is based on truth shall have to be decided at the trial on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution before the Court. Earlier than that, the High Court should not quash the proceeding - State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar [ (2000)10 SCC 337 ]. 16. In view of above, without going through the detail, elaborate discussion on the available evidence, it would not be proper to disclose or make any opinion regarding the available evidence in favour of either of the parties, therefore, this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, it is made clear that any observations made in the present order, shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties while the case will be decided by the learned trial Judge on its own merits. .............