JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the impugned order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Nagore in Sessions Case No. 24/2008 whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. but declined to frame alternate charge under Section 302 I.P.C., as prayed by him. 3. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision are that on 28.2.2008 at about 00.30AM, father of deceased Gyan Prakash lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Bhawanda, District Nagore, alleging inter alia that his daughter-Anita was married to Chandra Prakash S/o Ramu Ram (respondent No. 2) about 21/2 years back and at the time of marriage, he gave sufficient dowry but just after 2-3 months of marriage, the in-laws' of his daughter started harassing and ill-treating his daughter for demand of more dowry. The complainant/first informant, further alleged that because of non-fulfilment of their demands, his daughter was turned out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on the birth of one female child, a demand of Rs. 50,000/- was raised, else she was refused to be taken back. He further alleged that the accused persons i.e. the in-laws herein, often used to quarrel and beat his daughter. Further a 'panchayat' was held and the people of in-laws' side were reprimanded for quarreling and harassing their daughter-in-law and on the very next day of 'panchayat', on 27.2.2008, it was alleged that at around 10.00 AM kerosene was poured on her daughter by her mother-in-law and the husband of deceased-Chandra Prakash lit matchstick. The complainant alleged that the father-in-law Ramu Ram, two sister-in-laws and their husbands also participated in the act and were fully involved, as they asked to pour more kerosene on the person of deceased. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that no information as regards the incident was ever conveyed by the in-laws and on the message given by somebody over phone, he straightaway came to Burn Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and saw his daughter in badly burnt condition. She was pregnant at that time about four months. Thus, it was alleged that the accused persons have committed duel murder, as such, action be taken against them. 4. She was pregnant at that time about four months. Thus, it was alleged that the accused persons have committed duel murder, as such, action be taken against them. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case vide F.I.R. No. 13/2008 was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses, including injured deceased, when she was alive, were recorded. Thereafter, on her death on 1.3.2008 offence of Section 304-B was submitted in place of Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4, for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Nagaur. 5. During the course of arguments, at the stage of charge, a prayer was made by the complainant's side that it being a case of culpable homicide, and there being ample evidence on record in that respect, thus, in the alternative a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. may also be framed against the accused persons. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Nagore vide his impugned order dated 19.8.2008, proceeded to frame charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and refused to frame charge in the alternative under Section 302 I.P.C., as prayed. The petitioner/complainant being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned trial Court, to the extent of refusing to frame charge against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4, for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and only framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. has preferred this revision before this Court. A notice of this revision petition was issued to the accused party. Record of the case was called and arguments were heard. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and rejected his prayer to frame charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused respondents. It was submitted that in the report of the father of the deceased, in which he has specifically alleged that the mother-in-law of the deceased poured kerosene oil and husband lit the fire. It was submitted that in the report of the father of the deceased, in which he has specifically alleged that the mother-in-law of the deceased poured kerosene oil and husband lit the fire. He has further stated that father-in-law and other relatives were there at the time of offence. During investigation, same thing been reiterated. It is also contended that from the record it is revealed that there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, thereafter she was burnt. In this way, her death was unnatural and that was within a period of seven years of marriage. Therefore, his prayer before the learned trial Court should have been accepted to frame the charge along with Sections 498-A and 304-B also of 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., against the accused. He also submitted that in this case, police recorded her statement and also got recorded her statement on 27.2.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate and those were on record and in her statement before the learned Magistrate, she has specifically stated that her mother-in-law and her husband set her on fire by pouring kerosene. He drew my attention towards her statement. For ready reference, relevant portion is quoted as under:- " esjh lkl o esjs ifr us esjs ij dsjkslhu Mkydj tykbZ o esjs lkFk ekjihV dhA " 7. Thus, it was submitted that there was no bar to frame the charge of Section 302 I.P.C., along with charge of Section 304-B I.P.C. But the learned lower Court has not accepted his prayer and refused to frame the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., therefore, it was prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and charge of Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners may be added. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 302 or 302/34 I.P.C. It was submitted that charge should be definite. Inconsistent charge is not sustainable. When the learned trial Court has already framed the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., there was no need to frame separate charge under Section 302 I.P.C. In support of his contention learned counsel cited the judgment given in the case of Kashi Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(2) R.Cr.D. 728 (Raj.). 9. Inconsistent charge is not sustainable. When the learned trial Court has already framed the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., there was no need to frame separate charge under Section 302 I.P.C. In support of his contention learned counsel cited the judgment given in the case of Kashi Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(2) R.Cr.D. 728 (Raj.). 9. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that her parents came in her contact in hospital, thus, her statement recorded by the Magistrate is not free from tutoring by the parents. Therefore, no interference is needed in the impugned order and prayed that the revision may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 11. At the time of framing of charge, a prayer was made on behalf of the complainant that in the alternative a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. may also be framed. That was refused by the learned lower Court. In this case, I have perused the statement of the witnesses. The initiation of this case was made at the instance of complaint made by the father of the deceased. In that complaint he has made the allegation of pouring kerosene by mother-in-law and lighting fire by her husband. Further, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of other witnesses who got information from the deceased herself narrated that mother-in-law poured the kerosene and her husband lit the fire. In addition to allegation made by the father of the deceased and other witnesses there are the statement of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate. In her statement she has stated that her mother-in-law and her husband poured kerosene and lit the fire, the father-in-law was also available there. Thus the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the material available on record. The learned lower Court has not properly discussed the material available on record and refused to frame charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Thus I find that the case is required to be reconsidered by the trial Court and in this respect it is required to be remitted back. I have also considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel in this respect, in that case charge of Section 306 I.P.C. and in alternative the charge of Section 302/34 I.P.C. were framed. I have also considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel in this respect, in that case charge of Section 306 I.P.C. and in alternative the charge of Section 302/34 I.P.C. were framed. The basic ingredients under both the charges are different. In that context it was held that framing charge under Section 306I.P.C. and in the alternative under Section 302/34 I.P.C. are not sustainable. But in this case, prayer was different, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was prayed to be framed in alternative, along with charges of Sections 438-A and 304-B I.P.C. The contention is not having force and the judgment also does not support his contentions. 12. In the result, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the observation of the trial Court to the extent that there is no material to frame charge under Section 302 I.P.C. is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back for afresh consideration to this extent, in the light of material available on record. It is also made clear that the trial Court will not be influenced by any observation made in this order. The trial Court will expedite the hearing of the case.Revision petition partly allowed. *******