JUDGMENT 1. - By this application under sections 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, accused Ghasiram has invoked the revisional and inherent powers of this Court for quashing the entire proceedings in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1982 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh and in alternative to cancel the charge framed therein against him under Section 302, I.P.C. 2. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the accused, it is necessary to briefly notice the prosecution case. The deceased victim Mst. Guddi was the daughter of Kesraram Jat, but was brought up in village Maniyawali by her maternal uncles Arjunram, Lekhram and Rampratap. She was married to the accused nearly 2 or 21/2 years before her death on 19.8.1981. The marriage was performed by her maternal uncles. The accused and his parents (Asharam and Mst. Rukhma) did not treat her kindly. They used to beat and torture her. On the Teej festival in 1981, her maternal uncles took her to their village. She told them how she was ill-treated by the accused and his parents. After some days, accused's father Asharam went to bring her back. The maternal uncles refused to send her due to the inhuman treatment. Asharam assured them that no cruel treatment would be there in future with her. Taking the assurance to be genuine, the maternal uncles sent Guddi with Asharam. They also sent their nephew Bilwant and servant Sehabram with her. When they reached the accuseds house in village Kalwasiya, his mother Mst. Rukhma started abusing and threatened her of dire consequences. 3. In the noon of 19.8.81, she was seen in flames in the court-yard of the house. Hearing the noise, the neighbours Maniram, Loonaram and Surjaram and, others went there. They poured water on her. She fell down and was placed on a cot. The accused's elder brother Hariran went to village Maniyawali and informed her maternal uncles. Her maternal uncles Lekhram and Rampratap came in a jeep. They asked Guddi as to what had happened with her. She told them that her husband and parents-in-law sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her and set fire. They put her in the jeep and left for Government Hospital, Sadulsahar. But she did not survive and breathed her last in the way. Her maternal uncles Lekhram and Rampratap came in a jeep. They asked Guddi as to what had happened with her. She told them that her husband and parents-in-law sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her and set fire. They put her in the jeep and left for Government Hospital, Sadulsahar. But she did not survive and breathed her last in the way. Arjunram, who was at Ganganagar on that day, when apprised of the incident, came to the hospital and ascertained the facts of her death from his brothers. He then went to police station, Sadulsahar and lodged a report of the incident at about 8.15 p.m. on the same day. The police registered a case under section 302, IPC against the accused and his parents. After investigation, the police submitted a challan in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh only against the husband (accused) and that too for an offence under section 306, IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (1). Hanumangarh. An application was submitted before him by Arjunram on 18.5.82 praying there in that (I) The parents of the " accused viz. Asharam and Mst. Rukhma be summoned to face trial as Guddi was burnt by all of them, and (2) Charge under section 302, IPC be framed against all of them instead of that under section 306, IPC. 4. Keeping in view, the provisions of Section 319, Cr. P. C. the learned Judge decided to proceed against Asharam and Mst. Rukhama at that stage by his order dated October 4, 1982, He then heard the prosecution and the accused, and framed a charge under section 302, IPC against him on March 8, 1983. The learned Judge also recorded the reasons for his doing so. Aggrieved against the said order and charge, the accused has rushed to this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that there was . absolutely no material on record to frame a charge under section 302, I.P.C. It was argued that the reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were neither correct nor sufficient to frame the charge. I have also gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that there was . absolutely no material on record to frame a charge under section 302, I.P.C. It was argued that the reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were neither correct nor sufficient to frame the charge. It was urged that the victim had become unconscious before her maternal uncles Lekhram and Rampratap arrived at the house of the accused. She was, therefore, not in a position to speak. As such, the prosecution story of her having made dying declaration before them becomes untrue. The learned Judge was not correct in discarding the statements of Lekhram and Rampratap were varying and inconsistent in regard to the place where dying declaration was made. It was argued that in view of the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Cr. P. C. it was the duty of the court-below to properly sift and scrutinise the evidence collected by Police during investigation. But, the learned Judge examined the matter only in a routine and cursory manner. Reliance, in support of the contention was placed on Union of India v. Prafull Kumar Samal and another (AIR 1979 S. C. 366) , Kamal Kishore and others v. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr. L. R. (Raj ) 132) and Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 143) . 7. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the approach of the trial court was quite proper and just. The learned Judge has given detailed reasons for framing a charge under section 302, IPC. It was argued that while framing the charge that is to be seen is whether there is a prima facie case. The statements of the witnesses are not to be minutely examined at this stage. In the instant case there was enough material to show that the accused had caused the murder of his wife Mst. Guddi by burning her. Reliance was placed on State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (A.I.R. 1977 S. C. 2018) , Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & others (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52) and State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal & Sohanla (1980 Raj. Cr Cases 157) . 8. Section 227, Cr. Guddi by burning her. Reliance was placed on State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (A.I.R. 1977 S. C. 2018) , Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & others (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52) and State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal & Sohanla (1980 Raj. Cr Cases 157) . 8. Section 227, Cr. P. C. lays down that an accused is to be discharged where there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against him. Section 228, Cr. P. C. speaks that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame in writing a charge against him. Both these sections came for consideration before Their Lordship of the Supreme Court from time to time. In Rameshsinghs case (supra), Their Lordships observed:- "Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be. It would be clear that at the beginning and the 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 stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in 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 S. 227 or S. 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. 9. In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengals case (supra) the observations to the same effect were made in the following words: "It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. 9. In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengals case (supra) the observations to the same effect were made in the following words: "It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor propose to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of the charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 10. In Profulla Kumars case (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner, it was laid down:- "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 for 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. That 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 of determine a prima lade 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. 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 court 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 basis 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 if he was conducting a trial. 11. These principles and guide-lines were followed by this court in the case of Kamal Kishore (Supra) and Ram Singh (Supra). Nothing more is there in them. 12. The Law is, thus, well settled as to when an accused is to be discharged and when a charge is to be framed against him. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence is not to be judged at the initial stage of trial, while framing the charge. The standard of test, proof and judgement regarding guilt or innocence of the accused should not be applied at the stage of framing the charge. It is the broad features and probabilities of the case, which alone are taken into consideration to see whether a charge should or should not be framed. If the material collected by the investigating agency discloses the commission of a particular offence, a charge for that offence is to be framed. Even a grave suspicion against the accused is sufficient to frame a charge against him. Whether the case will ultimately result in conviction or acquittal of the accused is not the matter to be taken into consideration at this stage. The eye should not be on the ultimate result of conviction or acquittal but to see whether the accused should or should not be called to face trial. The evidence collected by police is not to be examined microscopically to pick up holes in the prosecution case. 13. The eye should not be on the ultimate result of conviction or acquittal but to see whether the accused should or should not be called to face trial. The evidence collected by police is not to be examined microscopically to pick up holes in the prosecution case. 13. Turning to the case In hand, the material on record disclosed the following incriminating circumstances against the accused:- 1. He did not treat the victim kindly and used to beat her of and on. 2. Her maternal uncles declined to send her to the accused due to his ill-treatment. They sent her only when his father assured them that she would be nicely treated in future. 3. When she returned to the accuseds house after the said assurance, his mother abused her (Victim) and threatened her of dire consequences " ( rw esjs cki ds ikl D;ksa ugha jgh\ ge jkaM dks ekj&2 dj lh/kh dj nsxsaA ) Though, the threats were from his mother, it has some relevancy and bearing against the accused. 4. She made dying declaration before her maternal uncles that she was burnt by the accused and his parents ; and 5. The accused did not accompany her when she was taken to the hospital nor did he reach there at any time. 14. These sets of evidence, if remain un-rebutted are sufficient to seek his conviction for her murder. They cannot be ignored or brushed aside at the stage of framing the charge. 15. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the victim had become unconscious instantly when she caught fire and at least before her maternal uncles arrived there. She was thus not in a position to speak. As such, the story of her making dying declaration crumbles down. I am unable to accept the contention. The neighbours, of course, stated that the victim had become unconscious instantly on catching fire. But, these neighbours are caste fellows of the accused.No wonder, if they ultimately turn out to be his relatives. They may be interested in the accused for one or the other reason. Whether the victim was or was not in a fit state to make dying declaration, is a question of fact, which can be decided only In the course of trial. So also is the question of the trust-worthiness of dying declaration. They may be interested in the accused for one or the other reason. Whether the victim was or was not in a fit state to make dying declaration, is a question of fact, which can be decided only In the course of trial. So also is the question of the trust-worthiness of dying declaration. All these questions require deep Judicial scrutiny, and that is possible only when the trial is held. 16. It was argued that the victim raised cries According to the learned counsel, these words suggest that no body else had set fire to her and that she herself caught the fire. I am again unable to accept the contention at this stage, where the scope is very limited. The witnesses speaking about these words are the same neighbours who stated about the victims becoming unconscious. The various incriminating circumstances alluded to above, cannot be summarily dismissed only on the basis that she uttered these words. 17. It was also argued that the statements of Lekharam and Rampratap were varying in regard to the place, where dying declaration was made. The contention has no force. According to one, the dying declaration was made in the courtyard and according to the other, it was made while she was being taken from the courtyard to the jeep The dying declaration cannot be thrown away at this stage only on account of this insignificant discrepancy. 18. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient material on record to frame a charge under section 302, IPC against the accused and to call him to face trial thereon. 19. EN PASSENT, a few words may be added about the investigation of the case. The police registered a case under section 302, IPC. The dying declaration made by the victim, was mentioned in the first information report lodged promptly without any delay. There were also various other incriminating circumstances as discussed above against the accused. But the Investigating Officer disregarded them for reasons best known to him. In one way, he usurped the functions of the trial Court. The Sessions Judge is not expected to act as a tool in the hands of the investigating agency, so as to blindly endorse their opinion, however, erroneous it may be. He is entitled to form his independent opinion. In one way, he usurped the functions of the trial Court. The Sessions Judge is not expected to act as a tool in the hands of the investigating agency, so as to blindly endorse their opinion, however, erroneous it may be. He is entitled to form his independent opinion. Of course, in doing so, he will have to confine himself to record of the case and documents submitted there with. He cannot travel beyond them. 20. In my opinion, a charge under section 302 I.P.C. has been rightly framed against the accused. There is no force in this application and the same is dismissed. The accused is directed to put appearance in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh on September 5, 1983. The record be returned immediately.Application dismissed. *******