ORDER : The instant revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2011 framing charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of merg intimation given by one Narayan Prashad Nishad regarding commission of suicide by deceased Nandlal Nishad on 07.07.2011 by hanging in the kitchen of his own house, FIR No. 232/11 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420/34 IPC was registered by Head Constable Jainath Singh in police station Kharora District Raipur. It is alleged that the applicants herein formed a Company in the name and style of Astha Goat Farming Pvt Ltd. in which the deceased was also one of the agents. Allegedly, the applicants used to collect money through the deceased for being invested in the afore-stated company, which would be doubled within a certain period of time. While assigning the task of collection, an assurance was put to the deceased of being provided an Alto Car as and when he achieved the target of Rs. 25,00,000/- plus a monthly royalty of Rs. 12,500/-. However, as the sequence of events unfurls, after the deceased achieved the said target by toiling day in and day out, the applicants instead of providing the benefits to the deceased, gave the same to their own relatives and thereby put the deceased at peril. Another accused Naveen Sahu though not before this Court but very much named in the FIR, is alleged to have grabbed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the deceased for providing a job of Patwari to his nephew but neither did he provide the job nor return the full amount of money taken by him. Out of the collection of Rs. 3,00,000/-, just Rs. 1,70,000/- were given back to the deceased whereas remaining Rs. 1,30,000/- were pocketed by himself. Not only this, when the deceased approached said Naveen Sahu for return of the money, he instead of fulfilling his genuine demand, used to threaten him of being booked by the police. This act of the accused persons caused a serious turbulence in the mind of the deceased driving him to take an extreme step of ending his life by hanging. This act of the accused persons caused a serious turbulence in the mind of the deceased driving him to take an extreme step of ending his life by hanging. The ordeal faced by the deceased at the hands of the accused persons is explicit from the death note seized by the police from the pocket of his own pant. After the postmortem being performed on the body of the deceased and completion of investigation including recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants herein and one Naveen Sahu for the offence under Sections 306 and 420/34 IPC. 3. Subsequently, on 18.01.2012 the trial Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record framed the charge against all the accused persons under Sections 306 and 420 IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the framing of charge by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18.01.2012, the applicants have preferred the present revision for setting the same aside. 5. Counsel for the applicants submits that even if the contents of the FIR, suicide note and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value, the offences under Sections 420 and 306 IPC are not made out against the applicants. Further, referring to the provision of Section 107 IPC, learned counsel for the applicants submits that none of the ingredients enshrined therein is attracted on the basis of which they can be held guilty under Section 306 IPC. According to the counsel for the accused/applicants, the material collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to make out a case of cheating and abatement under Section 420 and 306 IPC. 6. The contention put forth by the counsel for the applicants challenging framing of charge was that there is no material on record that the applicants in any manner whatsoever had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and others. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel however supports the order impugned and holds the same to be just and proper and based on the material collected by the prosecution. of NCT of Delhi) and in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and others. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel however supports the order impugned and holds the same to be just and proper and based on the material collected by the prosecution. State counsel further submits that the FIR, the suicide note and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are suggestive of the fact that on account of the cheating committed by the accused/applicants, the deceased was prompted to take the extreme step of ending his life by committing suicide. 8. State counsel further submits that the FIR, the suicide note and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are suggestive of the fact that on account of the cheating committed by the accused/applicants, the deceased was prompted to take the extreme step of ending his life by committing suicide. 8. Before proceeding with the case in hand on merit, this Court feels it apposite to throw a glance at the suicide note left by the deceased before committing suicide by hanging, which reads as under :- ^^eS ;g i= vius vafre thou yhyk ds le; fy[k jgk gwWaA vki tkurs gksaxs fd ejrs le; vkneh dHkh >wB ugha cksys eq>s uhps fn[kkus ds fy, dqN yksxks us eq>s viuk eksgjk cuk;k ftles izeq[k ¼1½ ';keyky Qsdj ¼ljgk½¼iykjh½ ¼2½ MkW jes'k /khoj ¼iykjh½ ftUgksaus esjs lkFk cgqr cM+k Ny fd;k mUgksus eq>s vkLFkk usVodZ dh ifrd es tksM+dj esjs vU; O;fDr dk yxHkx 50 yk[k :i;s bUosLVesUV djk;k ftldk iqjk ykHk Qsdj ,oa jes'k f/koj [kk x;k eq>s ,oa esjs nks lkFkh & fodkl nqcs ¼eksgnh½ uEew fu"kkn ¼eksgnh½ dks feyu ckyh ¼ek:rh dkj½ vius nksLrksa fnyk fn;k ftldh xokgh ujk;.k fu"kkn ¼fpxfj;k½ ,oa fodkl nqcs] uEew fo"kkn] cSck fueZydj gSaA eS pkgrk gwa dh bl dEiuh iqjh U;kf;d tkap gksos D;ksafd bl dEiuh ls feyus okyh jk;YVh foxr 2 o"kksZa ls cUn gSA tcfd ftcu Hkj 12500@ :i;s jk;YVh nsus dk oknk fd;k FkkA T;knk tkudkjh ds fy, dEiuh dk dsVykd ns[ksA ;k ¼dslsV½ esjk lcls vkSj cM+k Qjoh izkjij lkjkxkao dk O;fDr gSA ftUgksaus esjs ls esjs HkkWapk dh ukSdjh ds fy, 3 yk[k :i;s esjs ?kj ls pkj xokgksa ds le{k fy;k Fkk] ftlesa nks lMMw fuoklh] bUnje fu"kkn ,oa cgqj fu"kkn rFkk nks fpxfj;k fuoklh ukjk;.k fu"kkn] ,oa ftgku fu"kkn ¼xog½ ds :i esa 'kkfey FkkA ijUrq ukSdjh ugha yxus ds ckn eS mls iSlk okilh ds fy, dgk rks eq>s vius vkidks iqfyl dk vkneh crkdj iSlk nsus ds fy, udkjrk jgkA ckn esa mUgksaus nks fdLr esa eq>s izFke 1 yk[k ¼,d yk[k½ rFkk nwljk 70 lRrj gtkj :i;s okil fd; vHkh rd 1-30 yk[k ,d yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s mlds ikl cdk;k gSA blds vykok esjks dksbZ leL;k ugha FkkA ftlds fy, eq>s 'kfeZUnk gksuk iMsA eS pkgrk gwWa dh bu rhuks O;fDr ls l?ku iwNrkN djs ,oa eq>s U;k; fnykdj esjh vkRek dks 'kkfUr iznku djs! esjk ifjokj eq>s lcls T;knk pkgrs Fks esjs tkus ds ckn lHkh yksx vdsys jg tk;saxs eS vkidks crkuk pkgrk gwWa dh esjs vkRegR;k ds ihNs esjs ifjokj ls dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gSA D;ksafd vkt rd eq>s lHkh vPNk Lusg fn;k gSA** If the suicide note reproduced above is taken into consideration, one thing is clear that the accused applicants Shyamlal Fekar and Ramesh Dhiwar had cheated the deceased by making him invest a sum of Rs.50 lacs in his company known as Aastha Goat Farming Private Limited but not providing the benefits of royalty income of Rs.12,500/- and Alto car for which, as per the assurance given by them, he was entitled after achieving the target of Rs.25 lacs being deposited in the said company. The suicide note further spells out that the benefits of royalty and Alto car were made available by accused Shyamlal Fekar and Ramesh Dhiwar to some of their friends in place of the deceased. The contents of FIR registered on the basis of Merg registered at the instance of the brother of the deceased namely Narayan Nishad also indicate that the aforesaid two accused/applicants had cheated and tortured the deceased mentally as a result of which, he had embraced death by hanging. From the 161 statement of Giteshwari Nishad – the wife of the deceased also it emerges that 4-5 days prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased he had informed her that the benefits as promised by the aforesaid accused persons were not given to him and therefore he was mentally unstable. From the statements of Vikas Dubey and Nammu Nishad also it is apparent that they too had invested Rs.7,98,607/- and Rs.2,68,000/- respectively through the deceased but after closure of the company they did not receive even a single penny out of that. 9. To apply the judicial mind into the facts of the instant case, it seems necessary for this Court to derive some support from the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court pertaining to the framing of charge. 10. 9. To apply the judicial mind into the facts of the instant case, it seems necessary for this Court to derive some support from the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court pertaining to the framing of charge. 10. The Supreme Court has recently in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another, decided on 24.4.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019 made observations regarding the law relating to framing of charge as well as discharge has held that all that which is required in such cases is that the Court must be satisfied that with the material available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. Even a strong suspicion would suffice for that purpose, provided that such strong suspicion must be founded on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: "13. We may profitably, in this regard, refer to the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 wherein this Court has laid down the principles relating to framing of charge and discharge as follows: Reading Sections 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the Accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the Accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the Accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter Under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the Accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the Accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the Accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the Accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. The presumption of the guilt of the Accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the Accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the Accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the Accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the Accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order Under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one Under Section 228 and not Under Section 227. … 21. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the Court dons the mantle of the Trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the Accused. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the Accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that Accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the Accused has committed the offence." 11. The Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 366 has held that the Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. It has been further held that where the materials placed before the Court disclosed a grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion, but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. It is a settled law that the presumption howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. Relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced as hereunder: "10. It is a settled law that the presumption howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. Relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced as hereunder: "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out: (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth- piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 12. Further, the Apex Court in the matter of Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2010 SC 1446 has held as under: "18......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 finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. 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." 13. From the material gathered by the prosecution agency, the unnatural death of the deceased is very much clear from the suicide note, the FIR, the postmortem report as also the statements of many of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Likewise, the involvement of the accused persons 3 in number directly or indirectly in prompting the deceased to end his life by hanging can also not be set at naught because the material collected by the prosecution prima facie demonstrates that Shyamlal Fekar and Ramesh Dhiwar subjected the deceased to torture by making the benefits available to their relatives instead of the deceased even after he had achieved the requisite target. The statements of almost all the witnesses in particular the wife of the deceased go to show that after the accused persons left the deceased in lurch after taking huge amount of money collected by him but not providing him the benefits as promised after achieving a particular target. Probably, this non-keeping of the words by the accused/applicants landed the deceased in frustration which led him to ending his own life by suicide. Similarly, the role of accused Naveen Sahu in not refunding the amount of Rs.1.30 Lac taken from the deceased in lieu of providing the job of Patwari to his nephew and thus creating an embarrassing situation which ultimately became unbearable to the deceased can also not be put at denial particularly at this stage. This Court for the time being has to consider the material just with a view to find out whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused/applicants committed an offence, and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead a conviction. 14. This Court for the time being has to consider the material just with a view to find out whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused/applicants committed an offence, and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead a conviction. 14. Thus in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court it becomes axiomatic that at the initial stage if there is strong/grave suspicion leading the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused persons has committed offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence and the prima facie view of the matter, is to be taken into consideration only 15. Now getting back to the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that learned trial Court has not considered the abetment contained in Section 107 IPC while framing the charge by passing the impugned order and thus committed a blatant illegality and contravened the provisions of law, this Court does not find any substance in his contention that the charge ought not to have been framed against the petitioner since the prosecution has failed to adhere to the ingredients of abetment contained in Section 107 IPC. This Court also does not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused/applicants that nothing has come in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as to the involvement of the accused/applicants connecting them with the death of deceased for the reason that the guilt or innocence of the accused can only be determined after they are put to trial and testified by appearing in the Court. 16. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered the prima facie view of the matter and has undoubtedly applied its judicial mind while framing the charge against the accused/applicants under Sections 420 and 306 IPC. It cannot at all be said at this stage that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is unreasonable or unjustified warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It cannot at all be said at this stage that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is unreasonable or unjustified warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The material on record demonstrates that prima facie offence against the accused/applicants under Section 306 and 420 IPC is made out. The judicial pronouncements taken support of by the counsel for the applicants do not convince me to take a view other than the one taken by the court below while framing the charge and accordingly they are hereby given up. 17. No infirmity or legal flaw in the charge framed by the Court below is noticeable by this Court, and accordingly the revision petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. 18. It is however made clear that no opinion on merits and demerits of the case has been expressed by this Court and that any of the observations made while deciding this revision petition, shall not tantamount to an expression on merits. 19. Since the accused/applicants are enjoying stay since 30.03.2012, now it stands vacated and the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.