JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have approached this Court to challenge the order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the learned ASJ No. 4, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 357/2016 whereby, the trial court directed framing of charges against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 306 and 448 I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioners and the family of the deceased Radhakishan live as neighbours in Mahamandir Area of Jodhpur. It appears that minor squabbles were going on between the parties and some cases had also been instituted between them. Radhakishan consumed some poisonous substance on 26.3.2014 upon which he was admitted in a hospital. However, he did not respond to treatment and passed away on 30.3.2014. Shri Ghanshyam father of the deceased lodged a report at the P.S. Mahamandir alleging inter-alia that the petitioners herein had harassed and humiliated the family members of the complainant in the night intervening 25.3.2014 and 26.3.2014 and had threatened that if the complainant did not withdraw the criminal case which had been instituted for molestation of Saroj, then Radhakishan would be implicated in a false case of rape and he and his sister would be maligned in the society. Owing to this threat, Radhakishan became highly perturbed and consumed some poisonous substance as a result whereof, he became unconscious and had to be admitted to the hospital where he passed away. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 132/2014 was registered at the Police Station Mahamandir and investigation commenced. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the present petitioners for the above offences. The accused petitioners contested the charges before the trial court by advancing oral arguments but the trial court discarded the contentions and proceeded to frame charges against them as above. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri J.S. Choudhary learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Tarun Dhaka Advocate vehemently urged that there is hardly any material worth the name on the record of the case to justify framing of charges against the petitioners for above offences. He urged that the F.I.R. was lodged after significant delay of 5 days. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri J.S. Choudhary learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Tarun Dhaka Advocate vehemently urged that there is hardly any material worth the name on the record of the case to justify framing of charges against the petitioners for above offences. He urged that the F.I.R. was lodged after significant delay of 5 days. Even if the allegations set out in statements of the complainant and other witnesses are accepted as true on the face value, the essential elements of instigation or abetment are totally lacking from the case so as to justify the order framing charges. He urged that the trial court did not even advert to the statement of the deceased himself recorded by the official of the P.S. Mahamandir while he was admitted in the hospital. In the said statement, the deceased clearly stated that he was suffering from stomach ache and inadvertently consumed copper sulphate which was lying in the house mistaking it to be medicine. He urged that had the trial court applied its mind to the said statement, then there was no occasion to frame charges against the petitioners. He thus craved for acceptance of the revision and urged that the impugned order should be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and contended that the complainant party had lodged a criminal case against the accused party for molestation of Sushri ‘S’, daughter of the complainant. While the complainant had gone out with his wife, the petitioners barged into his house and threatened his daughter Sushri ‘S’ and his son the deceased Radhakishan with dire consequences. Radhakishan got terrified because of the threats given by the accused persons and consumed poison. He thus urged that the order whereby the trial court framed charges against the accused petitioners is perfectly justified and does not require any interference whatsoever. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. In cases of suicide, statement of the deceased recorded before death is essentially a dying declaration and is the most material piece of evidence and should normally decide the fate of the case because it is assumed that a dying person would not lie. 6. In cases of suicide, statement of the deceased recorded before death is essentially a dying declaration and is the most material piece of evidence and should normally decide the fate of the case because it is assumed that a dying person would not lie. Consequently, whenever the Court proceeds to adjudicate any issue which may decide the fate of the case, consideration of such statement/dying declaration is absolutely imperative. Failure to do so would vitiate the order passed in ignorance thereof. On going through the impugned order, it is evident that the trial court failed to even give a bald reference to the statement of the deceased Radhakishan recorded by the Investigating Officer of Police Station Mahamandir during the course of inquiry proceedings on 28.3.2014. The statement bears Radhakishan's signature and thus, is a material piece of evidence and has to be considered as his dying declaration as it spells out the circumstances which led to his death. Failure of the trial court to consider the import of the said statement is enough to convince the Court that the order under challenge is totally illegal and cannot be sustained as it was passed in ignorance of a material piece of evidence. 7. As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision deserves to be and is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the learned ASJ No. 4, Jodhpur is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to rehear the parties on the question of charges and to pass a fresh order after giving reasons with specific reference to the statement of the deceased Radhakishan recorded at the hospital while he was alive. Record be returned back forthwith.