JUDGMENT 1. 1. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by which the accused petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 I.P.C. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that one Suresh Chand Sonwal lodged a report at the Police Station, Gangapur City at 8.40 A.M. on 4.3.2007 that his sister Sunita was married to the petitioner Ajay Kumar around four years back. The petitioner Ajay Kumar had illicit relations with one Ritu. The petitioner Ajay Kumar was continuously harassing his sister to fulfill his illegal demand of dowry. On the occasion of marriage of his younger brother at Jaipur on 3.2.2007, the petitioner Ajay Kumar made a demand of Rs. 50,000/-. On 3.3.2007 when his younger brother Sandeep Sonwal talked to Sunita on mobile phone No. 9414823738 Sunita told him that the petitioners were harassing her for money and they were threatening and beating her and she asked for help. Thereafter they got the information that her sister Sunita and her son had been murdered. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of A. C. J. M. Gangapur City who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the accused petitioners have filed this revision petition. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence even to prima-ficie establish that the deceased Sunita was murdered by the petitioners. It has been further contended that in the suicide note left by the deceased Sunita there is absolutely no mention of any harassment for demand of dowry and, theftfore, this allegation is a mere cor ion. He has said that this is a clear case of suicide and the charges against the accused petitioners are groundless. He has placed reliance 1997 (1) Crimes 275 (SC), (2) AIR 1977 SC 2018 , (3) 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raja 1648 and (4) 1999 (1) RLW 570. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Naqvi, learned counsel for the complainant, have supported the impugned order. 6. He has placed reliance 1997 (1) Crimes 275 (SC), (2) AIR 1977 SC 2018 , (3) 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raja 1648 and (4) 1999 (1) RLW 570. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Naqvi, learned counsel for the complainant, have supported the impugned order. 6. As regards the charge under Section 302 IPC the learned P.P. and Mr. Naqvi have not been able to point out even an iota of evidence, direct or circumstantial, to connect the petitioners with the crime. I have also gone through the record very carefully and I have not found any evidence whatsoever against the petitioners under Section 302 IPC. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the charge against the petitioners under Section 302 IPC cannot be upheld. 7. Section 498-A punishes husband and his relative who harass or torture the woman to coerce her or her relative to satisfy any unlawful demand of dowry or who by willful conduct drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. 8. As regards Section 304B I.P.C. the following four ingredients are essential; 1. Death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. Death occurs within seven years of her marriage. 3. Soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 4. Such cruelty or harassment was in connection with any demand of dowry. 9. It is not disputed that the deceased Sunita died within seven years of her marriage. It is also not disputed that the deceased died on account of burns. 10. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence available on record in detail. The learned trial court has said that not only in the F.I.R. there is a clear allegation that the petitioners harassed the deceased Sunita in connection with the illegal demand of dowry and on 9.2.2007 the petitioner Ajay Kumar made a demand of Rs. 10. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence available on record in detail. The learned trial court has said that not only in the F.I.R. there is a clear allegation that the petitioners harassed the deceased Sunita in connection with the illegal demand of dowry and on 9.2.2007 the petitioner Ajay Kumar made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and on 3.3.2007 the deceased Sunita told her brother that the petitioners were harassing her for money and they were threatening and beating her but the witnesses Suresh Chand Sandeep, Lal Chand, Girraj Prasad, Rakesh, Bhagwan Das and Ram Babu have also stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was harassed by the petitioners in connection with demand of dowry. 11. It is well settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charges the Court is not to examine the evidence meticulously to see whether there are sufficient grounds for conviction. At this stage the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to examine are not to be judged. The standard of proof which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding conviction or acquittal of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage. At this stage, the Court is only expected to see that whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. I am of the opinion that in this case there is sufficient evidence for proceeding against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. 12. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and the order of framing of charge under Section 302 IPC is hereby set-aside. However, the order of framing of charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC calls for no interference and is maintained. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of as above.Petition partly allowed. *******