JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 367 of 1998 whereunder respondent No. 2 Akhilesh Kumar has been discharged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri. 2. I have heard Shri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 to oppose this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C are made out against the respondent No. 2 but the Court below has passed perverse order, because after marriage a constant demand of scooter in the form of Rs. 22,000/- was made by the respondent No. 2, which was not fulfilled and thereafter two months from marriage the victim was murdered. The respondent No. 2 also committed cruelty with the deceased during her life time, as a result of which she informed her parents by writing a letter dated 5.7.1994. The father of respondent No. 2 himself sent a letter to the revisionist on 16.1.1994 in which he categorically made a demand of Rs. 22,000/- in place of scooter for purchasing a plot. Thus the statements of witnesses as well as documentary evidence categorically made out the offences against respondent No. 2 but the trial Court took contrary view which was not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, legal presumption was liable to be drawn against the respondent No. 2, because deceased died within seven years from the date of marriage and it would be presumed that she was murdered unless and until otherwise proved and in this case the deceased was murdered immediately after two months of her marriage. 4. A perusal of the record goes to show that it was admitted case of the parties that the marriage of Sneh Lata with respondent No. 2 Akhilesh Kumar took place on 6.5.1994 and Sneh Lata died on 8.7.1994. The complainant Suraj Singh lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri on 9.7.1994 levelling allegations against respondent No. 2 and his family members that soon after marriage respondent No. 2 made demand of Rs. The complainant Suraj Singh lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri on 9.7.1994 levelling allegations against respondent No. 2 and his family members that soon after marriage respondent No. 2 made demand of Rs. 22,000/- for scooter and on account of non fulfillment of demand the respondent No. 2 and his family members, namely, Veer Bahadur Singh, Chhatna Kumari, Samant alias Chhannu, Dr. Nagendra Singh and Harnath Singh committed murder of Sneh Lata, daughter of Suraj Singh and with intention to cause evidence disappear, all of them cremated her dead body. A case under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. was registered against respondent No. 2 Akhilesh Kumar and others. The police on completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 and others. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of framing charge perused the police record and observed that the respondent No. 2 left his house on 2.7.1994 for training in Army and he was undergoing his training in Roorki on 8.7.1994, in view of certificate issued by Col. S.K. Mehrotra Commanding Officer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that no evidence against respondent No. 2 was found in case diary prepared by the I.O. in order to frame charges against him. 5. On perusal of record it has been found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in relying upon a private document issued by Col. S.K. Mehrotra Commanding Officer, which was liable to be proved during trial in accordance with law and no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of such document which was required to be proved. Absence of respondent No. 2 from the spot at the time of occurrence could be presumed on the basis of evidence to be adduced during trial. 6. The trial Court observed in its impugned order that the I.O. concluded that a prima facie case under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C. was made out against respondent No. 2 but it was not mentioned by I.O. that offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was made out against him. The learned trial Court must have arrived at some conclusion on the basis of evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and circumstances attending to the case. The learned trial Court must have arrived at some conclusion on the basis of evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and circumstances attending to the case. The legal presumption could not be drawn on the basis of mere averments made by I.O. on the basis of which the learned trial Court was not bound to draw any conclusion. The trial Court should have drawn presumptions under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act and in view of that position he was bound to frame charges against respondent No. 2. Section 304B of Indian Penal Code provides the following provisions: “(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.” (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life” 7. Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, shifts onus on the accused to dislodge the presumption of having committed abetment of suicide by a married woman. Similarly, the provisions of Section 113-B enjoin upon the Court to draw such presumption of dowry death on proof of circumstances mentioned therein and amounts to shifting the onus on the accused to show that she was not treated with cruelty by her husband soon before her death. Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act provides that : “When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.” 8. The specific allegation was made by complainant Suraj Singh in its report as well as his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the respondent No. 2 made demand of Rs. The specific allegation was made by complainant Suraj Singh in its report as well as his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the respondent No. 2 made demand of Rs. 22,000/- for scooter and the deceased informed her parent by writing a letter dated 5.7.1994 about demand of dowry and cruelty committed by the respondent No. 2 due to non fulfillment of demand but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of evidence. A strong circumstance was also found against respondent No. 2 that Sneh Lata died under unnatural circumstances soon after two months of her marriage, in respect of which no information was sent to her parents and family members and soon after her death, her dead body was cremated. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Court passed perverse order without considering above facts, circumstances and evidence on record as well as committed illegality in ignoring the legal provisions of Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. 9. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.1999 passed by IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Mainpuri is set aside. The case is directed to be sent back to the Court below for proceeding against the respondent No. 2 in S.T. No. 367 of 1998, in accordance with law. —————