JUDGMENT 1. - This S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2002 whereby charges under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C. were ordered to be framed against six accused petitioners. 2. The relevant facts in brief that Sh. Om Prakash, maternal uncle of deceased Veenita, lodged a written report at police station, Ramganj, Jaipur at 5.35 p.m. on 20.9.2001 with the averments that Veenita was married to Sh.Govind Gupta on 25.2.2001. After sometime of marriage, the accused persons started physical and mental harassment for more dowry. Veenita used to make complaints from time to time. Today they received the information that Veenita was burnt by the accused persons. He along with his sister rushed to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where Veenita told that she was burnt by her in-laws and during the treatment she died. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against these accused petitioners. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Judge ordered to frame charges vide order dated 4/7/2002 as stated here-in-above. 3. I have heard learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor. Accused Govind Narian, Hari Narayan, Smt. Ram Janki, Smt. Indira Devi, Sh. Ganesh Narain and Smt. Santosh are respectively husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, `Jethani', `Jeth' and sister-in-law (sister of accused Govind Narayan) of deceased Veenita. 4. These facts are not in dispute that Smt. Veenita was married to accused Govind on 25.2.2001 and she died in intervening night of 19.9.2001 and 20.9.2001 in her in-laws house and she died due to burns on 20.9.2001 in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Her dying declaration was recorded at 11 a.m. on 20.9.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel contended that even on the basis of dying declaration, no charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. is made out, as according to the dying declaration, her father-in-law and husband burnt her and thus there was no allegation against remaining accused petitioners. It was also argued that there are two sets of witnesses. Ramswaroop, Vikram, Om Prakash respectively, father, brother and maternal uncle of deceased. Radhey Shyam and Ghanhyam relatives of Ram swaroop made general allegations of dowry and harassment while Smt. Shyam and Vijay Shankar who are neighbors of the accused, stated that no demand of dowry was made at any time. Ramswaroop, Vikram, Om Prakash respectively, father, brother and maternal uncle of deceased. Radhey Shyam and Ghanhyam relatives of Ram swaroop made general allegations of dowry and harassment while Smt. Shyam and Vijay Shankar who are neighbors of the accused, stated that no demand of dowry was made at any time. According to learned counsel, thus, there was no material to frame charges against Smt. Ramjanki, Smt. lndira Devi, Sh.Ganesh Narayan and Smt. Santosh. It was also argued that Ganesh Narayan and his wife Smt. lndira Devi reside separately while Smt.Santosh being married resides at her in-laws house. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AlR 1979 SC 366 , it was held that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case. By and large if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but no grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 , it was field that charge should be framed if the prosecution shows that the material placed on record and the documents relied on give rise to a strong suspicion of the accused committed the crime alleged against him. In Kana Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 SC 2324 , it was held that for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra , the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with Section 227 Cr.P.C. held that a judge can not act merely as a post officer or mouthpiece of the prosecution. In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra , the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with Section 227 Cr.P.C. held that a judge can not act merely as a post officer or mouthpiece of the prosecution. He has to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been made out. Where two views are equally possible and evidence gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, he can discharge the accused. 5. Ram Swaroop, Vikram, Om Prakash, Radhey Shyam and Ghanshyam are not the age witnesses of the occurrence which took place according to the prosecution in intervening night of 19/20.9.2001. According to the statements of Ram Swaroop and Vikram, all the accused persons used to make dowry demands. They also gave some instances of such demands. According to the first set of witness, deceased Veenita often used to tell them regarding her harassments from time to time in connection with demands of dowry. They have named all the six accused persons. According to the dying declaration also all the six accused persons used to raise demands for dowry. Thus the learned trial Judge rightly framed the charges under Section 498 A IPC against all the six accused petitioners. Now the question is as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against all the six accused petitioners for an offence of dowry death under Section 304 B IPC. As stated above, even the first set of witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the actual occurrence of burning. The most important evidence on this point is that of dying declaration of the deceased. This dying declaration is in question- answer form. According to it at about 3 a.m. in the night, when deceased Veenita was sleeping, her husband Govind and father-in-law Hari Narain poured kerosene oil upon her and ignited gas lighter. When a specific question was put to her as to whether other persons were there at that time, she specifically answered that no other person was present at that time. It is also significant to observe here that the deceased was graduate. Thus she categorically stated before the Judicial Magistrate that at the time of this occurrence only two accused petitioners were present, who committed a crime of burning her. It is also significant to observe here that the deceased was graduate. Thus she categorically stated before the Judicial Magistrate that at the time of this occurrence only two accused petitioners were present, who committed a crime of burning her. Thus there was no ground or even grave suspicion against the remaining four accused petitioners for framing the charge under Section 304-B IPC. Learned counsel raised one more point and that is that according to the dying declaration the deceased was burnt by her husband and father-in-law, hence the offence does not fall under Section 304B IPC rather under Section 302 IPC. No such objection was taken either by the prosecution side or by the defence side before the trial judge. Any such objection, if found necessary may be taken before the trial court. 6. Consequently, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 4.7.2002 is set aside to the extent of framing the charge under Section 304B IPC against four accused petitioners Smt. Ram Janki wife of Hari Narain, Smt. Indira Devi, wife of Ganesh Narain, Ganesh Narain, son of Hari Narain and Smt. Santosh wife of Radha Govind.Revision partly allowed. *******