JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there no evidence on record so far as demand of dowry is concerned. Since there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry, the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the petitioners more particularly petitioner Gopal Singh. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have urged that there is statement of Mohan Kanwar against accused Marudhar Kanwar, sister of father of the husband of the deceased. She is allowed to have demanded dowry from the mother of the deceased. Marudhar Kanwar accused is alleged to have demanded TV, cooller and gold on the day when she insisted that the deceased be sent at her place. It was resisted by the mother of the deceased on the ground that there was no occasion for sending the deceased to the house of relations like that of the accused Marudhar Kanwar. There was no social occasion on which the deceased was required to be present at the house of accused Marudhar Kanwar and, therefore, the insistence of Marudhar Kanwar for taking the deceased to her house without any occasion after demand of dowry sufficiently constitutes the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 B I.P C. What adds to the situation is that the deceased had died within couple of days of taking the deceased to her place which falls within 7 years of the marriage. 3. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to indicate as to what is the specific evidence against Gopal Singh for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. Neither there is any demand of dowry nor Gopal Singh was part of `he group which escorted deceased to Indroka. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also is not in a position to indicate that that there is any evidence available on record to implicate Gopal Singh. In the absence of any evidence sufficient to implicate Gopal Singh it cannot he said that the charges against Gopal Singh has rightly been framed. 5. Having considered the record and the rival submissions made at the Bar from both the sides, I am of the opinion that the charge under Section 304 B I.P.C. framed against Marudhar Kanwar has rightly been framed by the learned trial court. There was sufficient material against has to meet the requirement of Section 328 Cr.PC. 5. Having considered the record and the rival submissions made at the Bar from both the sides, I am of the opinion that the charge under Section 304 B I.P.C. framed against Marudhar Kanwar has rightly been framed by the learned trial court. There was sufficient material against has to meet the requirement of Section 328 Cr.PC. So far as Gopal Singh is concerned the charge appears to be groundless. Hence the trial be proceeded against Marudhar Kanwar and charge against Gopal Singh is quashed. 6. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******