N. G. Nandi,j. ( 1 ) CHARGES framed on 26. 11. 1997 for the offences under Section 304-B/34 Indian Penal Code and under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code are sought to be revised and set aside by the Petitioners by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated is, that Monika Pasricha wife of Kamal Pasricha was married on 26. 10. 1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M. L. Pasricha, mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had been taking the household work from Monika to such an extent that it was physically not possible for her to do the same and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000. 00 for starting their own business and that Monika s parents had given them the money; that business did not run and Monika was again subjected to beat- ings; that the jewellery which Monika had got in marriage, was also retained by these people and did not return; that on being tired she had been residing at her parental house for the last one and half years along with her daughter aged four years; that a divorce case is also going on with the husband; that she had friendship with one girl Upasana, who has been staying as a tenant in her parental house; that on 1. 10. 1995 Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika s mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3. 10. 10. 1995 Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika s mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3. 10. 1995 there was some hot discussion between Monika s mother and Upasana and when Monika talked to her mother on this, then inmates of the house started telling Filthy and gave beatings to Monika; that her father told Monika that she is a call-girl and was given abuses in most filthy language, which she can not repeat/explain; that Monika was not on good terms with her mother and sisters; that due to this quarrel, she had been compelled to go to the kitchen and gas stove was ignited with the gas lighter and set herself ablaze; that she was very much tired by her father-in- law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and other family members. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record, framed the charge under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by Mr. K. K. Manan, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that the provisions of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are not attracted inasmuch as it is not shown that soon before the death of Monika she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand for dowry and that the death of Monika is not a dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B. IPC; that according to the dying declaration of Monika recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate the deceased and her husband had separated in company for more than one and half years prior to the incident; that a divorce petition was pending between the deceased and her husband on the date of incident; that Monika committed suicide because she was frustrated with her life and because of the quarrel which took place at her parental house over the issue of demanding Saree of Monika s mother by Upasana, which was taken back by Manoj on 1. 10. 10. 1995 and that Monika was abused in most filthy language by her father who had called her a call-girl; that the suicide committed by Monika at her parents place can in no manner be attributed to any of the accused persons since there no act on the part of the accused persons soon before the suicide committed by Monika and that I he statement of Monika does not connect any of the petitioners witht the incident of 3. 10. 1995. ( 5 ) THE lower court record has been requisitioned. I have perused the same for the purpose of satisfying myself as to the legality, correctness and propriety of the framing of charge for the offences under Sections 304-A/498-A/34 IPC. ( 6 ) SECTION 228 of the Code, which deals with the framing of charge requires that on consideration of the evidence placed on record, the court has to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. In other words, the criterion for framing the charge under Section 228 of the Code is that the evidence relied on by the prosecution, if remains unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused at the trial or not? ( 6 ) THE lower court record contains the dying declaration of deceased Monika recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3. 10. 1995 in Safdarjung Hospital, Burn Ward No. 11, wherein she is stated to have told that she is a divorcee; that previously there was a problem from her husband and his family but now there is no problem; that there are repeated harassment from husband and the other persons of the family on account of dowry; that she has burnt herself; that she was frustrated with life; that her in-laws are troubling her and sometimes her father also; that she has been feeling upset thinking about her future; that she did not want to be with her husband. nor she wanted him to be with her; that she does not have any complaint against any body regarding this incident and she herself did it out of frustration. ( 7 ) THE lower court record also contains the statement of Monika recorded under Section 161 of the Code wherein she has stated that she was married on 26. 10. nor she wanted him to be with her; that she does not have any complaint against any body regarding this incident and she herself did it out of frustration. ( 7 ) THE lower court record also contains the statement of Monika recorded under Section 161 of the Code wherein she has stated that she was married on 26. 10. 1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-=3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M. L. Pasricha, mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had been talking of the household work from Monika to such an extent that she was not able to do it physically and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000. 00 for starting their own business and that Monika s parents had given them the money; that business did not run and Monika was again subjected to beatings; that the jewellery which Monika had got in marriage, was also retained by these people and did not return; that on being tired she had been residing at her parental house for the last one and half years along with her daughter aged four years; that a divorce case is also going on with the husband; that she had friendship with one girl Upasana, who has been staying as a tenant in her parental house; that on 1. 10. 1995 Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika s mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3. 10. 1995 there was some hot discussion between Monika s mother and Upasana and when Monika talked to her mother on this, then inmates of the house started telling Filthy and gave beatings to Monika; that her father told Monika that she is a call-girl and was givenabuses in most filthy language, which she can not explain; that Monika is not in good terms with her mother and sisters; that due to this the quarrel, she had been compelled to go to the kitchen and gas was ignited by the gas lighter and she put herself ablaze; that she was very much tired by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and other family members. The lower court record also contains the statement of Ms. Upasana daughter of A. . The lower court record also contains the statement of Ms. Upasana daughter of A. . S. Kharbanda, which also suggests the incident of 1. 10. 1995 and 3. 10. 1995, as stated by the deceased in her statement under Section 161 of the Code. ( 8 ) THE statement of deceased recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3. 10. 1995, which is the dying declaration in view of the subsequent death of victim Monika, as pointed out above, indicates frustration as the reason for her committing suicide on 3. 10. 1995 and the frustration because she left her matrimonial home because of the matrimonial discord with her husband as the consequence/result of alleged ill-treatment meted out to her and demand of dowry by the accused persons when she was at matrimonial home leading to the separation between the spouse requiring the deceased to stay at her parental house with her daughter, aged about 4 years, as suggested from the statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and her statement under Section 161 of the Code. All these made her feel frustrated thinking about her future. So, the frustration was the consequence of what happened earlier requiring her to stay at her parents place with her daughter. It is also suggested at the same time that since about one and half years prior to the incident, she had been staying at her parents place. It is not suggested from the record that even during this period of one and half years any of the petitioners were meeting the deceased and were making demands of dowry or that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry. There is no evidence on record to the effect pointed out above. The demand of dowry or the alleged ill treatment/harassment by the petitioners were atleast before one and half years of the incident and the matrimonial discord led to the filing of the divorce petition between the spouses. There is no evidence on record to the effect pointed out above. The demand of dowry or the alleged ill treatment/harassment by the petitioners were atleast before one and half years of the incident and the matrimonial discord led to the filing of the divorce petition between the spouses. The statement of Monika recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate clearly suggests that there were repeated harassment from the husband and other relations on account of dowry and previously there was problem from her husband and his family but not after she returned to her father s place, meaning thereby that till the time she separated in company from her husband and came to her parental house there was repeated harassment from her husband and the family members on account of demand of dowry but all these problems were not there around or soon before the date of incident on 3. 10. 1995. ( 9 ) SECTION 304-B Indian Penal Code provides that the death of a woman must have been caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it should also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. ( 10 ) IN the instant case at least for the last one and half years prior to the incident, there does not appear any harassment caused by any of the petitioners as required under Sections 304-B IPC. The allegation as regards "cruelty" as far as the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is concerned is a different matter. The statement of Monika, recorded under Section 161 of the Code and by the Sub Divisional Magistrate rules out any reason to presume that soon before 3. 10. 1995 any harassment was caused or cruelty inflicted by any of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 304-B IPC. On the contrary, the reason, which led Monika to commit suicide was other than the harassment/cruelty by any of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 304-B IPC and as far as incident of 3. 10. 1995 is concerned, the petitioners are not even remotely implicated by Monika. On the contrary, the reason, which led Monika to commit suicide was other than the harassment/cruelty by any of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 304-B IPC and as far as incident of 3. 10. 1995 is concerned, the petitioners are not even remotely implicated by Monika. Thus, the lower court record does not suggest any evidence to presume cruelty/harassment on account of demand of dowry by any of the petitioners soon before 3. 10. 1995 which led Monika to commit suicide on 3. 10. 1995. The alleged cruelty/harassment on account of demand of dowry before one and half years, can not be regarded as an act soon before the un-natural death of Monika on 3. 10. 1995 and the incidents taking place 1 1/2 years prior to 3. 10. 1995 can not be regarded as cause proximate leading her to commit suicide. Naturally any lady having a daughter aged 4 years required to stay in the circumstances as above, at her parents place and the atmosphere at the parents place being not congenial, would feel frustrated with life thinking about her future. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the record, I am of the view that the framing of charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-B/34 Indian Penal Code can not be regarded as legal and correct since the death of Monika can not be attributed to cruelty/harassment on account of demand of dowry soon before 3. 10. 1995 by any the petitioners. ( 12 ) THE statement of Monika under Section 161 of the code and the statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 3. 10. 1995 at the same time suggest that there are clear allegations of the petitioners having caused repeated harassment to Monika on account of dowry. It is also suggested that earlier there were problem from her husband and his family members on account of demand of dowry but no such problem on or soon before 3. 10. 1995. The frustration with life was because of the trouble by the in-laws leading to matrimonial discord, the alleged cruelty/ harassment on account of demand of dowry, requiring Monika to come to her parents house with her small daughter. 10. 1995. The frustration with life was because of the trouble by the in-laws leading to matrimonial discord, the alleged cruelty/ harassment on account of demand of dowry, requiring Monika to come to her parents house with her small daughter. ( 13 ) AS far as the charge framed for the offence under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is concerned, even the statement of deceased Monika recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and her statement under Section 161 of the Code as pointed out above, sufficiently suggest the grounds to presume the petitioners having committed the offence under Section 498a IPC. ( 14 ) IT, therefore, follows from the above that this Criminal Revision petition deserves to be partly allowed to the extent that the charge for the offence under Section 304- B/34 Indian Penal Code framed against the petitioners/accused by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi is liable to be set aside as the same can not be regarded as legal and correct considering the record and this revision petition would partly fail to the extent that there is no illegality committed by the lower court in framing the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code inasmuch as this part of the impugned order is legal and correct, considering the record. ( 15 ) THE petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on May 14, 1999. ( 16 ) LOWER Court record be returned forthwith.