JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these revision petitions have been filed against the same impugned order, therefore, both these revision petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Both these revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Prohibition Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.92/2013, arising out of FIR No.131/2013 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar whereby charges were framed under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bhanwar Lal Modi lodged a written report alleging inter alia that his daughter Saraswati got married with accused Suresh Kumar in the year 1998. After some time of the marriage, accused Suresh Kumar and his family members started torturing his daughter and started demanding dowry. On 08.05.2013, accused Suresh Kumar threatened him to give Rs. 5 lakhs on mobild and also threatened to divorce his daughter. On the next day, his daughter telephoned him and informed that she is being tortured and that she will be burnt if Rs. 5 lakhs were not given to her in-laws, on which, he with his wife and brother, came to Raisinghnagar and thereafter he received information from the brother of accused Suresh Kumar that his daughter has burnt and she has been taken to hospital at Raisinghnagar from where she was referred to the PBM Hospital at Bikaner. 4. On the basis of the said information FIR No.131/2014 was registered at P.S. Raisinghnagar for the offences under Sections 498A and 307 IPC but thereafter due to the death of Saraswati, during treatment, Section 302 IPC was also added and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The learned trial court thereafter framed charges for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC vide order dated 10.12.2013, which was challenged by the accused Suresh Kumar by filing revision petition before this court which was registered as SB Criminal Revision Petition No.58/2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2014 and the order framing charge was set aside and the matter was remanded back for deciding the same afresh after considering the material available on record. The learned trial court, after hearing, again framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The learned trial court, after hearing, again framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Hence, these revision petitions. 5. I have heard Mr. Pradeep Shah appearing on behalf of accused Suresh Kumar, Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat for complainant Bhawnwar Lal and Mr. LR Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Mr. Pradeep Shah, appearing on behalf of accused Suresh Kumar submitted that his marriage with the deceased took place in the year 1998 and from their wedlock he is having three daughters. He submitted that while preparing tea, the deceased caught fire and he tried to seize the fire due to which he also sustained burn injuries. Soon after the incident, on 09.05.2013, the police recorded the statement of deceased Saraswati Devi and after that her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. In both these statements, she did not level any allegation against the accused Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, on the next date, i.e. On 10.05.2013, father of deceased, after seeking legal consultation, submitted a written report before the SHO,PS Raisinghnagar and levelled false allegations against him on which FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded but none of the witnesses stated against the accused Suresh Kumar that he every abetted the deceased for committing suicide. Still the learned trial court, without any material available on record, ordered to frame charge against the accused Suresh Kumar for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Ramchandra v. State of M.P., [2001(3 Crimes 166 (SC)] and Kheta Ram v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision Petition No.1048/2014, decided on 04.02.2015]. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned trial court, while considering the material on record, rightly framed the charges, which does not require any interference. 8. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat and Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that the neighbour of accused, viz., Amarjeet Kaur, in her police statement, clearly stated that the petitioner-accused used to give beatings to the deceased and all the three daughters. He was not even giving proper mean to them. On 09.05.2013, when she heard the cries from the house of the accused Suresh Kumar, she went there, where she found the main door closed. He was not even giving proper mean to them. On 09.05.2013, when she heard the cries from the house of the accused Suresh Kumar, she went there, where she found the main door closed. However, anyhow, the door was got opened and after bringing water from here and there, the fire was blown out. At that time, the deceased Saraswati was lying on the floor and she with the help of one Smt. Santosh Devi, put-on her clothes and the accused Suresh Kumar, permitted them to took her to the hospital only after showing the fear of police. It was submitted that there was enough material to show that it was the accused Suresh Kumar, who burnt the deceased but the learned trial court, without considering this aspect of the matter, wrongly framed the charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. It was thus prayed that his revision petition may be allowed and the accused Suresh Kumar be charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC instead of section 306 IPC. He placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the cases of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., [2004 Cr.L.J. 2025] and Narayan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2008(3) R.Cr.D. 237 (Raj.)]. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Section 306 IPC reads as under:- "306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever 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." 11. For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in Section 107 IPC. 12. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:- "107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 13. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence under section 306 IPC, the learned court below has to consider whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the commission of the suicide. It is also necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 IPC. It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commit suicide. 14. In the case in hand, the deceased Saraswati Devi, who sustained burn injuries on 09.05.2013 and thereafter her dying declarations were recorded twice, one on 09.05.2103 by the police and the other on 10.05.2013, by the Judicial Magistrate. In both the statements, she has deposed that while preparing tea, her saree caught fire and she sustained injuries. It was also stated by her that she was tried to be saved by her husband due to which he also suffered injuries. In none of the statements, she alleged anything against the accused Suresh Kumar that he ever instigated her to commit suicide. 15. The complainant, in the report, stated that he was told by his daughter (deceased) that she was pressurised by the in-laws to give the statement of their choice but this thing was nowhere disclosed by him. As stated above, the deceased gave two dying declarations and there was no contradictions in both these statements. The neighbour of deceased, viz., Amarjeet Kaur though stated that the accused used to give beatings to the deceased and all the three daughters and was not giving proper meal. From the above, it cannot be gathered that the accused, in any way, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 16. Thus, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, it can safely be said that there is no prima facie material which indicates that the petitioner ever instigated, prompted or pressurised the deceased with the intention that she should commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 IPC are totally lacking. However, the allegation that the accused subjected her to cruelty is to be decided after evidence. 17. The ingredients of Section 107 IPC are totally lacking. However, the allegation that the accused subjected her to cruelty is to be decided after evidence. 17. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused himself burnt the deceased and thus the accused should have been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, from the perusal of the material available on record and from the statements of the deceased herself and other witnesses, it nowhere came that the accused committed murder. The police also did not find any material during investigation to connect the accused with the crime of murder. Mere stating that the deceased was pressurised by the in-laws or the statement of Amarjeet Kaur, is not sufficient. The deceased burnt on 09.05.2013 in the morning and thereafter the police recorded the statement on 09.05.2013 itself and thereafter the Judicial Magistrate recorded her statement on 10.05.2013, wherein no such allegations were levelled against him. The father of the deceased has also not disclosed the same to anybody else. 18. In the case of Ramchandra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while finding that there was no material on record to connect the accused with the crime, discharged the accused from the charges framed against him. 19. In the case of Kheta Ram (supra), this court, while considering various case law cited by the accused, observed that the learned trial court should not act as a mouthpiece or as a mere post-office for the prosecution and it is expected to sift the evidence to see if the offence has been committed by the alleged offender or not and discharged the accused from the offence under Section 306 IPC. 20. 20. In the case of Dalbir Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "Here the Court proceeded to examine the question that if the accused has been charged under Section 302 IPC and the said charge is not established by evidence, would it be possible to convict him under Section 306 IPC having regard to Section 222 Cr.P.C. Subsection( 1) of Section 222 lays down that when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. Sub-section (2) of the same Section lays down that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. Section 222 Cr.P.C. is in the nature of a general provision which empowers the Court to convict for a minor offence even though charge has been framed for a major offence. Illustrations (a) and (b) to the said Section also make the position clear. However, there is a separate chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Chapter XXXV which deals with Irregular Proceedings and their effect. This chapter enumerates various kinds of irregularities which have the effect of either vitiating or not vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. Sub- section (1) of this Section provides that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. This clearly shows that any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges shall not result in invalidating the conviction or order of a competent Court unless the appellate or revisional Court comes to the conclusion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. This clearly shows that any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges shall not result in invalidating the conviction or order of a competent Court unless the appellate or revisional Court comes to the conclusion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In Lakhjit Singh (supra) though Section 464 Cr.P.C. has not been specifically referred to but the Court altered the conviction from 302 to 306 IPC having regard to the principles underlying in the said Section. In Sangaraboina Sreenu (supra) the Court completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 464 Cr.P.C. and keeping in view Section 222 Cr.P.C. alone, the conviction of the appellant therein under Section 306 IPC was set aside." 21. This position is not disputed that when the grave charge is framed against the accused, he can be punished for the offence of lesser charge in place of grave charge, if proved. But, there should be prima facie material for framing grave charge. In the present case, two dying declarations are there and no prima facie evidence was found to be there for framing charge under Section 302 or 306 IPC. Therefore, this judgment does not help the complainant. 22. In the matter of Narayan & Ors. (supra), after recording of statements of witnesses and one eyewitness, they stated about the manner in which accused gave severe beating to deceased and the trial court prima facie found that charge was required to be altered. A coordinate Bench of this court, in the above circumstances, held that the trial court rightly altered the charge and framed charge under Section 302 IPC, which is also not disputed but in the case in hand, prosecution evidence has not yet started. No statement of prosecution evidence has yet been recorded and the stage of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is always open for the parties. At this stage, this case law does not help the complainant. 23. In view of the above, there was no material before the trial court to hold that the accused, in any way, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Further, as stated above, there is also no material to show that the accused himself burnt the deceased and thus committed murder. 24. 23. In view of the above, there was no material before the trial court to hold that the accused, in any way, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Further, as stated above, there is also no material to show that the accused himself burnt the deceased and thus committed murder. 24. Further, from the record, it is clear that the marriage took place 20 years ago and thus there cannot be any presumption as enshrined under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act for framing charge under Section 306 IPC. 25. Considering the above legal position and material collected during investigation in this case, the revision petition filed by the accused being SB Criminal Revision Petition No.482/2014 is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2014 to the extent of charge under Section 306 IPC is quashed and set aside and the accused Suresh Kumar is discharged from the offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned trial court should proceed with the trial considering the above observations in view of the provisions of Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. 26. For the above reasons, I find no force in the revision petition filed by the complainant being SB Criminal Revision Petition No.532/2014 and the same is hereby dismissed.The record of the trial court be returned forthwith with a copy of this order.Revision partly allowed. *******