JUDGMENT 1. - Three petitioners before me have challenged the order dated 9.1.89 of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he has framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 120B IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased Kailash Kanwar was murdered, or that there was any conspiracy between the petitioners to do away with him. The post mortem report and other document have been read extensively in order to contain that the petitioners could not be held responsible for the death of the deceased as she had committed suicide on her own free will. According to him there is no direct or circumstantial evidence in support of the prosecution theory and when there is no material worth the name, the petitioners should be discharged. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the deceased had written letters a couple of months prior to her death in order to show that she was unhappy and was not allowed to meet the persons coming from her village or her parents' house. It has also been contended that blood stained and half burnt clothes of the petitioner No. 1, husband of the deceased were also found at the place where the deceased Kailash Kanwar was found dead with burns. Kerosene can was also found near that place. 4. The trial of the case as yet to be conducted by the concerned Sessions Judge and it may be stated that it would not be appropriate for me to make detail comments on the facts and circumstances of the case. One thing can be said positively which is that the case against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC can be said to have been made prima facie on the basis of the evidence which has been collected in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that it is a case, wherein the petitioners are to be discharged for all the offences for which they have been charged. At the same time, it can be said that the prosecution has tried to make out some connection between the petitioner No. 1 and the death of the deceased. Thus, it cannot be said that it is a case, wherein the petitioners are to be discharged for all the offences for which they have been charged. At the same time, it can be said that the prosecution has tried to make out some connection between the petitioner No. 1 and the death of the deceased. And it cannot be said to be a case where there are no grounds for proceeding against the petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The only question, which remains is whether the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 can be said to be connected in the same manner with the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 120B IPC. For making out a case of conspiracy there should be some material which could point towards the conspiracy. Direct evidence may not be produced for showing this but circumstances must also be pointed out to lead to these suggestions. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a meeting of minds regarding conspiracy for committing the murder of Kailash Kanwar. I may again mention that the matter has been heard at length by me and because the case has to be tried against the petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and against other accused petitioners under Section 498A IPC, it is not considered proper to discuss the matter in detail. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has some letters in his possession which have not been taken by the investigating officer. For this, it can be said that it is for him to decide as to in what manner they can be placed before the court if they support the case of the prosecution. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this petition is accepted to this extent that all the three petitioners are discharged for the offence under Section 120B IPC so far it relates to the death of Kailash Kanwar. The charge against the petitioner No. 1, Dinesh Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC shall remain but the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall stand discharged for this offence. Charge under Section 498A or 498A read with Section 120B IPC does not require any interference and it is maintained.Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******