C.V. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rahli district Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 793/2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charge against the applicant/accused Shrikant under section 306 of the I.P.C.
(2.)AS per prosecution story, deceased Guddibai, who was a 16 years old unmarried girl, who lived in village Hinauta. At around 1.30 p.m. on 19.4.2009, she had gone to nearby river bank to ease herself. At that time, accused/applicant Shrikant in order to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand and hugged her. When deceased Guddibai raised an alarm, her mother Ashok Rani and sister -in -law Sunita rushed to the spot. On seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. In the commotion, the accused/applicant dropped his mobile phone. Ashok Rani and Sunita brought the mobile phone to their house. However, immediately thereafter mortified by shame and apprehending infamy, Guddibai consumed poison. She was rushed to the hospital where she death her last. Marg intimation was immediately lodged in the police station Garha Kota. However, after investigation, the first information report was lodged against the accused after a delay of about two and a quarter years on 12.7.2011.
Subsequently, a charge -sheet was filed against the accused/applicant and a charge under section 306 of the I.P.C. was framed.

(3.)THE order directing framing of the charge as aforesaid has been assailed in this revision mainly on the grounds that the first information report was lodged after a delay of two and a quarter years and the statements of material witnesses namely Ashok Rani and Sunita were also recorded after a delay of two and a quarter years. No investigation was made in order to establish that the mobile indeed belonged to the accused/applicant. It has also been submitted that the charge -sheet does not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offence of abetment as defined under the Indian Penal Code. On aforesaid grounds, it has been contended that the learned trial Court grievously erred in framing a charge under section 306 of the I.P.C.