JUDGMENT 1. - These two criminal revision petitions have been preferred against the order of the sessions Judge, Jaipur, dated 15th February, 19ts4, by which, he ordered to frame charge against the petitioners for the offences as mentioned in the said order. Though, both the revision petitions were filed separately, but, they arise out of the common order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15th February, 1984, and hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. According to the prosecution, Km. Sudesh Saxena (deceased) was working as a teacher at Jaipur. Her elder sister, Smt. Namrata Saxena was working as Head-Mistress in Government Girls' Middle School, at Village - Ajitgarh in District Sikar. Km. Sudesh used to visit her elder sister's residence at Ajitgarh and stay there for some time, li is alleged that Babulal, co-accused, who happened to be the Sarpanch of that village, hid illicit relations with Smt. Namrata, and through her, he came in contact with Km. Sudesh. The prosecution has further alleged that Km. Sudesh became pregnant ; and then, in order to miscarry the pregnancy, Km. Sudesh was taken to accused Mst. Jaitoon, a midwife at Village-Amarsar. Mst. Jaitoon performed the act of miscarriage of pregnancy of Km. Sudesh, which resulted in excessive bleeding Then, Babulal and Smt. Namrata took Km. Sudesh to Ajitgarh Hospital ; and she was examined there by Dr. Kalyan Singh, who advised them to take Km. Sudesh to Janana Hospital, Jaipur. Babulal hired a jeep of one Jagdish; and while they were taking Km. Sudesh to Jaipur, she died in the way. The deadbody of Km. Sudesh was then brought directly to Jaipur, to the house of the deceased. It is alleged that Smt. Namrata was also with them when the dead body was brought to Jaipur. The dead body of Km. Sudesh was cremated on 17th September, 1979. 3. One Maliram, sent a letter to the Prime Minister, New Delhi. A Similar type of report was also sent to SHO, Sikar. In the said letters, it was alleged that the sister of head-mistress of Ajitgarh, was taken for abortion to Amarsar, and in that act, she died. On account of this complaint, the CID police investigated the matter ; and the SP, CID, on 17th September, 1980, sent a report to SHO, Shahpura, alleging all these facts. In the said letters, it was alleged that the sister of head-mistress of Ajitgarh, was taken for abortion to Amarsar, and in that act, she died. On account of this complaint, the CID police investigated the matter ; and the SP, CID, on 17th September, 1980, sent a report to SHO, Shahpura, alleging all these facts. On receipt of this report, the SHO, Shahpura, on 27th September, 1980, registered an FIR No. 189/80, under Sections 314 & 201, IPC, and investigated the case. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against 7 accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the sides, found that no prima facie case was made out against accused Shivshanker ; and he, therefore, discharged him of the charge levelled against him. However, he found that prima facie case for framing charge against the order accused persons, wait made out. Therefore, he ordered to frame charge against Babulal and Smt. Namrata under Sections 120-B, 314 & 201 IPC ; against Mst. Jatoon and Chand Mohd. u/s 314, IPC ; and against Dr. R. C. Saxena and Dr. Subhash Saxena, under Section 201, IPC. Against the said order of the Sessions Judge, Ramchandra, Subhash Chandra ; Babulal ; Mst. Jaioon; and Chand Mohd. have preferred these revision petitions. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Tibewal has argued that there is no case to frame a charge against Ramchandra petitioner. He does not press the revision petition so far as Subhash Chandra is concerned. His argument is that the only evidence against Ramchandra is his own statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. In this present case when the deadbody of Km. Sudesh was cremated. Except this, there is no other evidence. So, according to Mr. Tibrewal, no case is made out against Ramchandra to frame a charge under section 201, IPC. 5. This is relevant to note that the accused Ramchandra is elder brother of Shivshanker, father of the deceased. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is sufficient to say that Ramchandra being the elder brother of the deceased's father must be knowing about the circumstances which caused death of Km. Sudesh. When the deadbody of Km. Sudesh was brought to her residence at Jaipur and she was taken for cremation, it was the duty of accused Ramchandra to have informed the police as to in what circumstances, the death had occurred. Sudesh. When the deadbody of Km. Sudesh was brought to her residence at Jaipur and she was taken for cremation, it was the duty of accused Ramchandra to have informed the police as to in what circumstances, the death had occurred. It was his duty to verify and find out the actual cause of the death. He has failed to verify this aspect, and for which, Prima facie, feel that a case is made out to frame a charge under Section 201, IPC, against him. may write that these observations will have no effect at the time of the final trial of the case. But, Mr. Tibrewal argued that the statement of Ramchandra recorded under Section 161, Cr. PC. is not admissible in evidence, and on its basis, no charge should be framed. This argument can be raised during the trial; and the learned Sessions Judge would consider and decide it according to law. At this stage, when the charge is being framed, I do not not feel it necessary to enter to decide this aspect. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in ordering to frame charge against Ramchandra accused under Section 201, IPC. His revision petition has, therefore, no force. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Surana argued that Dr. Subhash Saxena has also admitted in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. that he was present at the time of cremation of Km. Sudesh. This statement is not substantive statement and the learned Sessions Judge should not have considered it. It was also argued that the only evidence against this accused is that he issued a certificate on 28th July, 1979 and the said certificate was only for the purpose of granting It have and salary of Km. Sudesh. It was also argued that there is no evidence even prima facie to prove that the accused persons acted in such a manner in order to make disappear the dead body of Km. Sudesh. There is nothing on the record that Babulal accused was even present at the time of the cremation of the dead body of Km. Sudesh. There is no evidence that he made disappear the deadbody. It was also argued that for an offence under Section 514, IPC. there should be some evidence for framing charge that the accused acted in miscarriage of a women with child. Sudesh. There is no evidence that he made disappear the deadbody. It was also argued that for an offence under Section 514, IPC. there should be some evidence for framing charge that the accused acted in miscarriage of a women with child. There should be some evidence that the action of the accused was in such a manner which caused the death of that woman. It was also argued that there is no evidence that Babulal had administered some medicine to Km. Sudesh or that he even had purchased, some medicine for administering it to Km. Sudesh. It was also argued that according to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, a child of 7-8 months cannot he aborted and it would be only a premature delivery, so there cannot be any miscarriage of a child of 7-8 months. According to Mr. Surana, if believed that Bibulal brought Km. Sudesh to Jaipur in a jeep, it does not mean that he was responsible for the miscarriage. While referring to Sections 201 & 214, IPC, he argued that the ingredients of these Sections have not been even prima facie established by the record of this case. So, according to him, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in framing charge against him. Regarding accused Chand Mohammad, it was argued that there is no evidence whatsoever against him. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the record of the case, produced along with the challan prima facie case, is made out against the accused persons; and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly framed the charges against them. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties; and also perused the record of the trial court, produced along with the charge-sheet. I have also gone through the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. Surana has cited a number of authorities in support of his contentions, as if the whole case is being argued at the final stage. The law cited by him, has no bearing on the present case, because, the stage is of framing charge. Only prima facie case is to be seen from the papers submitted by the police along with the challan. It is not necessary to enter into the detail and discuss the evidence, because that evidence is of investigation. The law cited by him, has no bearing on the present case, because, the stage is of framing charge. Only prima facie case is to be seen from the papers submitted by the police along with the challan. It is not necessary to enter into the detail and discuss the evidence, because that evidence is of investigation. The learned Sessions Judge is only to look into the documents produced by the police along with the challan and if there is prima facie some evidence to proceed against the accused persons, then it is proper to frame charge. This is not the stage where the ingredients of the evidence are to be discussed and evidence to be scrutinised on the aspect whether the said ingredients have been established or not. Mere prima facie case is to be seen; and I find that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in framing charge against the petitioners except petitioner Chand Mohammad. There is no prima facie evidence against Chand Mohammad petitioner for framing a charge under Section 314, IPC. 9. Looking to all the circumstances and the record of the case, I do not feel to interfere in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, so far as it relates to petitioners Ramchandra, Subhash Chandra, Babulal and Mst. Jaitoon. 10. Hence, the revision petition filed on behalf of four petitioners, is dismissed in limine. The revision petition of Chand Mohammad is accepted as indicted above. The charge framed against Chand Mohammad petitioner under Section 314, IPC is set aside, and he is discharged of the said charge. He is on bail, His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******