JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 05.12.08, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.55/2008, by which the learned Judge framed charge under sections 498-A, 306, 354 and 376 IPC against the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a case was initiated on 05.09.08 on the report of the father of the deceased Nathu Ram , at Police Station Sangad, District Jaisalmer stating interalia that his daughter Kanchan (deceased) was wedded to Khem Chand, petitioner No.2, S/o Chanda Ram petitioner No.1. on 11.07.07 . In the report it was further stated that after marriage her in-laws started to harass and ill-treat her with demand of dowry. It was stated in the report that she narrated all the inhumanities and the incident of ill-treatments committed by the in-laws, when she used to come to her parental house. It was stated in the report that she was sexually ill-treated by her father in-law. Further it was stated that her father in -law and her husband, poured kerosene on her on 31.08.08 and set her on fire and due to that she succumbed to death on 04.09.08. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, an FIR No.41/08 was registered for the offence under sections 304-B, 498-A, and 354 IPC against the petitioners , as well as against mother in-law and sister-in-law of deceased and investigation started. During investigation, police also obtained her dying declaration recorded by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer on 01.09.08. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the present petitioners under sections 304-B, 498-A and 376/511 IPC and the case was committed to the court of concerned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusing the record and hearing the parties, framed charges under section 306 IPC against Khemchand (husband of the deceased) and against Chanda Ram,(father in-law of the deceased) under sections 306, 376, 354 and 498A IPC vide impugned order dated 05.12.08 and fixed the case for prosecution evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition . Notice of this revision was given to the respondents, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition . Notice of this revision was given to the respondents, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly framed the charges against the petitioners, of the said offences. Learned counsel submitted that there was no nexus between the death of the deceased and the alleged conduct of petitioner No.1, for which he has been charged for the offence under section 306 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident of attempting rape was stated to be one month prior to the incident. Thereafter, as per statements of the witnesses, the deceased and her husband remained to live at Fatehgarh, a distant place. Thus, committing suicide on that count, was not tenable. Likewise, other levelled charges are also not sustainable. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention towards the statements of witnesses and further on the strength of material available on record, it was urged to discharge the accused persons from the charges levelled against them and prayed that the revision may be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgments given in Swamy Prahladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 SCC (Cri.) 943 and Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, JT 2005 (3) SC 46 in support of his contentions. 5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant party, refuted the contention and submitted that there were sufficient material available on record, including dying declaration made by the deceased and the learned Sessions Judge, after perusing these records, has properly framed the charge. At the stage of charge, detailed discussion of facts and minute analysis of that were not required . Thus, the contention raised by the petitioners are not sustainable. He also drew my attention towards the statement of the witnesses, specially the dying declaration of the deceased, as well as the statement of her mother Smt. Sita Bai and on the strength of the statements, a prayer was made to reject the revision petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments cited by the petitioner' side. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments cited by the petitioner' side. As the case is pending before the learned Sessions Judge , Jaisalmer, detailed appreciation of facts will not be in the interest of either party. During the course of investigation, the dying declaration recorded by S.D.M.,Jaisalmer, has been procured. In the dying declaration she had specifically made allegations against her father - in-law. In addition to dying declaration, there are other material available on record that shows that she was harassed and ill-treated by in-laws. It is stated that she used to complain to her husband but her husband, ignored the same and tried to defend his father. That instigated her to commit suicide. At the stage of charge, minute analysis of facts was not necessary. 7. Looking to the over all facts of the case, the charges framed against the accused petitioners by the learned District & Sessions Judge vide impugned order is not suffering from any irregularity or illegality. I have also perused the judgments cited by the petitioner's side. In the case of Swamy Prahladdas (supra) challan was filed only against accused Shanti Devi under section 306 IPC and a request was made to summon other accused persons but that was rejected as there were no material to summon. In the case of Netai Dutta (supra), there was no material available on record, of harassment and maltreatment by the concerned petitioner, but that is not the position in the present case. Thus, both the judgments cited by the learned counsel do not help his contentions. 8. In the result, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******