ORDER 1. The accused-applicants have directed this revision against the order dated 6th January, 1995 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kukshi district Dhar in S.T. No. 341 of 94, thereby framing charges against all applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC. 2. The facts of the case, stated in brief are that one Gayatribai wife of applicant No.3, Radheyshyam committed suicide on 3.8.1994 by swallowing some poisonous substance in her matrimonial home at village Lohars. During the investigation of merg report with regard to unnatural death of said Gayatribai, a case under Section 396/34 IPC vide Crime No. 328/94 was registered at Police Station, Kukshi against the applicants. It is not in dispute that applicant No.1 Harjee is a father-in-law of the deceased, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased, applicant No.3 is the husband of the deceased and applicants No.4 and 5 respectively Radhabai and Rukhmabai are the sisters of the husband of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that unnatural death of deceased Gayatribai occurred within seven years of her marriage with applicant No.3 Radheyshyam. On perusing the material available in challan papers, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the applicants as indicated above. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision against the order of framing of charges against them. 3. I have heard Shri S.K. Pawanekar learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Abdul Salim learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that on the strength of the evidence collected by the prosecution, no prima facie case for framing charges against applicants under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC is made out. The counsel specifically submitted that there is no evidence on record, at least, to frame charges against applicants No.4 and 5 for the aforesaid offences. The counsel submitted that Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in framing charges against all applicants. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer submitted that there is sufficient material on record on the basis of which prima facie case is made out against all applicants for framing the alleged charges. The counsel also submitted that at the stage of framing of charges sufficiency of ground for presuming commission of the offence has to be seen. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer submitted that there is sufficient material on record on the basis of which prima facie case is made out against all applicants for framing the alleged charges. The counsel also submitted that at the stage of framing of charges sufficiency of ground for presuming commission of the offence has to be seen. Assessment of sufficiency of material for basing conviction is not necessary at the stage of framing of charges. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the record as also the evidence available on challan papers, I find that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges against all applicants for the offence punishable under Ss.304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC. 7. From the statement of Jagdeesh and Vinod brothers of the deceased, Bhuribai the mother of the deceased, Punamchand, the father of the deceased and Surajbai, sister of the deceased, it primafacie appeared that after the marriage of the deceased, her husband, Radheyshyam and other family members used to torture and ill-treat her for not bringing money by way of dowry. It is not disputed that within a period of seven years of the marriage of the deceased Gayatribai committed suicide on 3.8.1994 at her matrinominal home at village Lohara. 8. I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State that at the stage of framing of charges, Court is not supposed to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but the Court may evaluate the material to find out if the facts taken at their face value establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. 9. In case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar [AIR 1976 SC 366], the Apex Court has laid down the law on the point in dispute as under :- "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. 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". 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". A similar view is reiterated by this Court in case of Ghumansingh and Ors. v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. [ 1991 JLJ 387 ] and held that on reading Ss. 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. together, made it clear that at the stage framing of charge only sufficiency of ground for presuming the commission of the offence has to be seen. The assessment of sufficiency of material for basing conviction is not within competency of the Court, as that can only be determined after the trial is held. 10. In view of the facts and material available on challan papers in the case at hand and the law applicable, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order framing charges against all applicants for the offences punishable under Ss. 304- B, 306 and 498-A IPC. The order of the trial Court on the point of framing charges against applicants, is not suffering from any infirmity and as such requires no interference in this revision. 11. Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of any substance and merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.