JUDGMENT 1. - For the death of one Shanti Devi, her husband, Inder Kumar her sister-in-law Mst. Hulsi and her brother-in-law Mahesh Kumar was challenged for offences under Sections 302, 498A, 201 and 120 IPC. After committal of the case before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, arguments were heard for finding out as to what offences were made out and for which offences the accused-persons should be charged. After considering the evidence and specially the dying-declaration of Mst. Shanti Devi, Indra Kumar were discharged for all the offences Mst. Hulsi was charged for offences under Section 302 498-A IPC. while Mahesh Kumar was charged for the offences under section 201 IPC. Both of them were discharged for the other offences 2. The State has not preferred any revision against this order but the complainant has moved an application under Section 482 Cr P.C praying that the accused Mahesh Kumar should be discharged for the offences under Section 301, 498 A, and 120 B IPC against all the accused persons Another miscellaneous petition has been preferred by Mahesh Kumar, challenging the framing of charge for the offence under section 201 IPC. Both there petition are being disposed together. 3. While hearing the petition of the complainant it was ordered to issue show cause notices to non petitioner Mahesh Kumar as to why he should not be charged for the offences under Section 201 IPC. Later on it has ben found that Mahes Kumar has already been charged for the offence under Section 201 IPC and challenge the same. Inspite of the notice confined to charging for the offences under Section 201 IPC only, learned counsel for the complainant has argued in detail in order to frame charge against the accused Mahesh Kumar, for offences under Sections 302 and 498 IPC. His contention is that under Section "04 B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act, there is a presumption about the causing of death by husband or any other relative when there is evidence to show that there was demand for dowry and the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative in this connection. His contention is that under Section "04 B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act, there is a presumption about the causing of death by husband or any other relative when there is evidence to show that there was demand for dowry and the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative in this connection. According to him in the present case there is evidence of the complainant Prabhu Dayal, which is to the effect that Shanti Devi was subjected to harassment on account of bringing inadequate dowry and in view of this evidence, Mahesh Kumar should be charged for all the offences for which a challan was put up He has placed reliance on RLW 1987, 583, AIR 1977 SC 2018 and 1986 (1), 452. On basis of these decisions, it is contended that strong suspicion founded upon material can lead the trial court to frame the charge and at the time of framing of charge, it is necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of proof, sufficient for basing a conviction 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused non-petitioner Mahesh Kumar has contended that the inference is to be drawn from the evidence of all the witnesses and it would depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case, whether there is strong suspicion to frame charge against the accused or not. He has placed reliance on Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein following principles, have been laid down for guidance for framing of charge under Section 227 Cr P.C. : (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. (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. B; 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." 5. In the present case the evidence consists of the dying declaration made by Smt. Shanti Devi, the statement of her father, mother, brother and some other witnesses. The learned Session Judge while framing the charge has taken into consideration not only the evidence of the parents of the deceased but her own dying-declaration also in which she has stated that her husband used to treat her well and she had no grievance against him. Even the evidence about demand of dowry can be said to be of a nature which does not suggest that this evidence is in the nature of strong suspicion so as to presume on its basis that the resultant death is a dowry death. The effect of evidence, as a whole is to be considered and piecemeal statement of the witnesses are not to be quoted and accepted as the complete truth (1) Cr.L.R (Raj) 1981, 143 at the time of framing of charge. It may also be stated that suspicion alone cannot be said to be good ground tor framing the charge but this suspicion has to be strong or grave, which may not be the same as proof, which is required for purposes of convicting a person. Whether charge should be framed in this case or not. would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and not on general principles, which can be said to be for purposes of guidance only. In this case the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence and I do not consider it necessary to repeat the same as I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by him. The charge has been framed against each accused person according to the testimony, which involves him or her. 6. As for as the charge under Section 201 IPC, against the accused Mahesh Kumar is concerned, it cannot be said that it is not basis of any evidence. The charge has been framed against each accused person according to the testimony, which involves him or her. 6. As for as the charge under Section 201 IPC, against the accused Mahesh Kumar is concerned, it cannot be said that it is not basis of any evidence. Learned counsel for Maheh Kumar has tried to explain the disposal of the burnt cloth of deceased in a well as casual disposal of the articles, but then this explanation at this stage cannot be considered sufficient so as to say that there is no prima-facie case of having committed this offence, framing of this charge is also proper. 7. It has been conceded on behalf of accused that this petition is not maintainable because the State has a right to prefer a revision against the framing or non-framing of charge and the complainant has no locus-standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of my finding, which I have given above, I do not consider it necessary to give any finding on this objection. Both the petitions No 389/1987 and 686/1987, are dismissed. 8. Record of the court below be returned immediately. *******