Honble SAXENA, J. – Heard. Perused the order dated 8.2.95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City in Session case No. 2/92 whereby he after hearing the parties and perusing the charge sheet & the evidence collected by the investigating officer, ordered for framing the charge against the accused-respondent No. 1 to 3 for offences under sections 498A, 306 & 201 I.P.C. only and rejected the complainants application for framing the charge against them for offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. (2). The deceased Smt. Savitri was married to respondent Raju alias Rajendra Kumar sometime in April 1990. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the respondent Motilal who is father of Raju demanded a colour T.V. & Rs. 10000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that Smt. Savitri was harassed at her in our house in connection with the demand of dowry. After about 1 1/2 months of her marriage, Smt. Savitri came back to her parents house where she stayed for about 4-5 months. It is further alleged that thereafter she was taken back to her in laws house and that on 17/9/91 her death took place in abnormal circumstances due to excessive burns. It is also alleged that the accused-respondents did not report the matter to the police and hurriedly & surreptitiously cremated her dead body. Bhagwan Sahai brother of the deceased lodged a report whereupon initially a case for offences under sections 498-A, 304-B & 201 I.P.C. was registered at police station Nadoti. However, after investigation, the police submitted challan for offences under Sections 306,& 201 I.P.C The learned Sessions Judge to whom the case was committed by the impugned order framed the charge for offences under Sections 489-A, 306 & 201 I.P.C. only against the accused respondents and held that prima facie no offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. was made out. Hence this revision petition. (3) I have carefully perused the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in this case. Not a single witness in his police statement has stated that Smt. Savitri was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his any relative for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. (4) On the other hand during investigation, it transpired that the respondent Motilal, father-in-law of the deceased had kept a concubine for which the deceased has protested. (4) On the other hand during investigation, it transpired that the respondent Motilal, father-in-law of the deceased had kept a concubine for which the deceased has protested. Even, Smt. Savitri mother of the deceased, has not stated that Smt. Savitri was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused respondents in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. There is not an iota of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer that from October, 1990 till unnatural death of Smt. Savitri which occurred on 17.9.91 the latter was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused respondents. (5) In Jai Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1), it has been held as under :– "In order to draw the presumption as to "dowry death" the prosecu- tion must prove (i) that the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage; (ii) that she had met with an unnatural death either due to any burns or bodily injury or under abnormal circumstances and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove the aforementioned basic ingredient including the fact that such woman soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. If this initial burden is successfully discharged by the prosecution then the provisions of Sec.113-B, Evidence Act can be pressed into service to take a prosecution that such person had caused the dowry death". (6).Hence for the reasons above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there does not exist any valid reason to proceed against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 304_B and as such, the impugned order is neither illegal nor incorrect nor improper and the same does not warrant any interference. The impugned order is also not tantamount to abuse of process of law. (7). Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is meritless and the same is here- by dismissed .The record of the lower court be sent back forthwith.