JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition against charge has been preferred on behalf of three accused persons Rajesh Pareek, Suresh Pareek and Sunil Pareek. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Briefly stated, on 30.5.95, Bansidhar submitted a report at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur alleging that Pramila alias Babli was married to Rajesh Pareek on 7.12.1993. She was being harassed at the hands of her in-laws for want of dowry, the persons named in the FIR were Rajesh, Suresh and Sunil, Sapna and the mother-in-law of Pramila. They demanded colour TV, VCR, dining table etc. and that whatever was given in the marriage was being condemned because of its quality. This was told by Pramila to her father and other relations who tried to amicably settle the issue on several occasions. It was further alleged that Pramila was left with her parents on various occasions after belabouring her. On 22.5.95, Smt. Pramila had gone to the her parents house in order to prepare for some ensuing examination and on 28.5.95 at about 7.00 a.m., her husband came who was in anger. He abused her and threatened inmates of the house who were present and then took Pramila by force. After some time, Pramilas uncle went to her in-laws house in order to inquire and came to know that Pramila was taken to a hospital by her husband and brother-in-law. She was found admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of SMS Hospital, Jaipur where the husband and brother-in-law were present. She was in serious condition. On 29.5.95 at about 10.00 a.m. when the-in-laws were not present, Pramila stated to her uncle Bansidhar Pareek that it were her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and both the brothers-in-law assaulted her and forcibly administered poison. She further stated that she had given favourable statement of accused persons to the Investigating Agency as well as to the Magistrate a day prior under duress and fear of her in-laws. Ultimately, Pramila died on 29.5.95 at about 8.50 p.m. A case U/ss. 498-A & 304-B IPC was registered, investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against three petitioners but investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. qua sister-in-law and mother-in-law. However, later on supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Sapna before the Juvenile Justice Court while final report was given against mother-in-law. Ultimately, Pramila died on 29.5.95 at about 8.50 p.m. A case U/ss. 498-A & 304-B IPC was registered, investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against three petitioners but investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. qua sister-in-law and mother-in-law. However, later on supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Sapna before the Juvenile Justice Court while final report was given against mother-in-law. The learned Magistrate submitted the case to the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioners by order dated 8.6.99. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the deceased herself got her statement recorded by a Magistrate giving a clean chit, the story of the prosecution was not to be accepted. I find from the investigating papers that first of all the dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City on 28.5.95 wherein Pramila stated that she was having some trouble in her stomach and that she took Beraigon tablets from her dressing table and swallowed them. Thereafter, she vomited twice and then she was shown to a private doctor by her husband who asked to taken her immediately to the hospital where she was admitted. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by the police in which she repeated the same story and the statement which was recorded by the police also bears signature of Pramilas father. On the basis of this evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order framing charge against the petitioners should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is sufficient evidence to the effect that Pramila was pestered on account of demand of dowry and that she died in suspicious circumstances because after her post mortem, stomach wash, blood sample and other portions of the body were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which showed the presence of aluminium phosphide which means that she died due to admonition of poison. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court in State by Central Bureau of Investigation v. S. Bangarappa (2000 VIII AD (SC) 542) has held that when a charge is framed against an accused U/s. 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to give reasons for framing of charge and that the Supreme Court was of the view that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during the stage of charge is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed further. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners cited State of Karnanata v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ) ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., ( AIR 1979 SC 366 ) ; and, Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors., ( AIR 1990 SC 1962 ) and submitted that this Court can in revisional jurisdiction look into the evidence recorded by the investigating agency and come to its conclusion and that there cannot be any hard and fast principle that once the charge has been framed on whatever material, the curtain is dropped on the proceedings at that stage. He also submitted that so far as Pramilas husband is concerned, at the most of charge U/s. 323 IPC can be made out but so far as two other petitioners are concerned, there is nothing to involve them on the basis of evidence recorded by the prosecution. I find from the citations submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court can for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, has wider discretion in the exercise of powers U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. which it can determine on the basis of the material on the record, if un-rebutted, on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. In these citations, it was considered whether the order framing the charge should be speaking one or not and it was held that it was so required to be speaking one because the superior court may examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 7. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to law down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 8. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabis case (supra), it has been held the Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution stages as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 9. In view of all these citations, I have examined the evidence recorded by the prosecution. There is a report of Forensic Science Laboratory which mentions presence of aluminium phosphide in the body of the deceased. That shows that Pramila had not taken Beralgon tablets as stated by her to the Magistrate or to the police. Instead she had consumed poisonous tablets. Therefore, the story that she had consumed Beralgon tablets is not correct and her dying declaration to that effect at this stage cannot be accepted. 10. Now the question is whether it is the husband or his brothers who are responsible prima facie to have committed the offences U/ss. 498-A & 304-B IPC. Instead she had consumed poisonous tablets. Therefore, the story that she had consumed Beralgon tablets is not correct and her dying declaration to that effect at this stage cannot be accepted. 10. Now the question is whether it is the husband or his brothers who are responsible prima facie to have committed the offences U/ss. 498-A & 304-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence worth the name against Suresh Pareek and Sunil Pareek who are brothers of the husband and that husband Rajesh Pareek can be at the most liable for offence U/s. 323 IPC. But this does not appear to be so after I have gone through the record of the case. It is Bansidhar Pareek, the uncle of the deceased Pramila who reported the matter to the police and has mentioned in the first information report that immediately after the marriage of Pramila with Rajesh, she was being pestered by the husband as well as by the two brothers of her husband as well as by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. If the police has submitted final report against the mother-in-law for one reason or the other, it would not mean that the whole case is false. He mentioned in the first information report itself that when he reached the in-laws house of Pramila, her mother-in-law and husbands sister misbehaved with him but told that Pramila was taken to hospital and ultimately he went to SMS Hospital where Pramilas husband and his brother Sunil were present. She did not say anything in their presence and when Pramilas father came, she narrated on 29.5.95 at about 10.00 a.m. in absence of her husband and his brother that the petitioners had given her beatings and administered poison and that she had stated to the police and the Magistrate under fear and duress as per dictation of her husband and his brother. This version in the first information report has been corroborated by him in his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. It is Rajendra Kumar who is the father of Pramila and has stated that Pramila was being pestered right from the time of her marriage by the petitioners and that when he reached hospital, Pramila wanted him to rescue her. Whatever he has stated is sufficient to proceed against the petitioners that the offences for which charges have been framed against them. Whatever he has stated is sufficient to proceed against the petitioners that the offences for which charges have been framed against them. When it is found from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that Pramila had consumed some poisonous tablets, it does not appear to be sound that she would tell to the Magistrate or the police that she had consumed Beralgon tablets unless she might have been so tutored by somebody. This is being observed by me at the time when I am looking into the evidence of the police for the purposes of the charge and this observation is with regard to charge only and this observation is with regard to charge only and may not be taken as an expression or any opinion on the case as a whole. In view of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the charges framed against the accused petitioners. 11. Consequently, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******