K. N. OJHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A. and have gone through the impugned order dated 23/10/2003 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut has framed charges against the revisionists under Sections 498-A and 307 J. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to prosecution, Smt. Nighat Asif was married with Mohd. Asif, revisionist No. 1 on 15/10/1996. Demand for scooter and cash of Rs. one lac being not satisfied, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members. Anyhow her brother made arrangement of Rs. 20,000. 00 and gave it to the accused persons on 1st July, 1997. Jt is said that on 21/8/1997 husband and his family members, who are revisionists beat her and turned her out of the house because arrangement of Rs. one lac could not be made by her father and brother for the revisionists. Jt is further stated that on 10/3/2000 when demand being not satisfied, the revisionists sprinkled kerosene oil on her and burnt her as a result of which she remained admitted for 1-1/2 months in Meerut hospital. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists submits that occurrence is said to have taken place on 10/3/2000 while F. I. R. was lodged from the side of the victim on 1/8/2000. The victim was got admitted in Meerut hospital and about Rs. 70,000. 00 was spent. If there was really any intention of killing the victim, the revisionists would not have admitted the victim in the hospital. Later on, it is said that talaq has taken place between the parties. Photostat copy of burn injuries has also been filed. ( 4 ) IN this case, the marriage is said to have taken place in the year, 1996 and the occurrence did take place in March, 2000 within seven years of the marriage. The allegation is that it was not an accident, but the victim was burnt by the revisionists. It is not denied that she remained admitted in hospital for medical treatment for 1-1/2 months. In such circumstance this fact can be ascertained after the evidence as to whether she was subjected to burn injuries or she suffered burn injuries in some natural circumstance. It is not denied that she remained admitted in hospital for medical treatment for 1-1/2 months. In such circumstance this fact can be ascertained after the evidence as to whether she was subjected to burn injuries or she suffered burn injuries in some natural circumstance. ( 5 ) SECTION 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates as below If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the court of Session, he shall frame charge in writing against the accused. ( 6 ) THUS, at the stage when the charge is framed, the evidence should be such that a presumption of the offence being committed may be made. It is not necessary that indepth appreciation of the evidence should be made and it must be proved at the charge stage that the evidence will be sufficient for the conviction of the accused and only prima facie consideration of the evidence is to be made. In this case the family members of the victim and victim herself stated that cruel treatment was done, she was subjected to burn injuries, she remained admitted for 1-1/2 months in the hospital and later on Talaq did take place between the parties. At the stage of charge it cannot be appreciated as to whether really offence has been commi-tted by the accused persons or it was merely an accident in which victim suffered burn injuries. In such circum-stances, if the charges under above-mentioned sections have been framed against the revisionists, no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Result dismissed. .