MOHD.YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali dated 8.4.1992 by which he framed charge under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. Briefly stated a report was lodged on 24.10.1991 at 6.00 P.M. by petitioner No. 1 Hari Singh that his real brother Mangal Singh fell in well. He died due to grievous injuries. An inquiry was conducted under Section 174 Cr. P.C. and a case under Section 306 IPC was registered. After usual investigation challan was submitted against Hari Singh and Bhanwar Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Heri Singh and Mangal Singh deceased had a joint well. Construction work was going on. It was decided between the two brothers that the expenses incurred will be shared by both of them. Mangal Singh was a poor man and not in a position to pay his share. A quarrel took place between Hari Singh and Mangal Singh wherein it is alleged that Hari Singh said that in case he was not able to pay expenses he should go and fall in a well. Thereupon Mangal Singh committed suicide by falling himself in a well. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of this evidence framed charge under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not add or abet the offence and, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioners is totally groundless. He cited 1985 (10) RCC page 257, Gautam Raj Mehta Vs The State of Rajasthan in which following words were used - rw esjk fj'rsnkj gS A rwus gekjh cnukeh djok nh A blls rks vPNk gksrk rw ej tkrk A;