JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 38/2012, whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307/120-B, 326/120-B and 324/120-B IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that an FIR was filed by one Sikander Singh at the Police Station Raisinghnagar on 1.1.2012 with the allegation that his sister Kulvinder Kaur had come to his house along with her children. She was sleeping in the room with her children. The main gate of the house was locked. At about 3 am in the morning, his sister started shouting about having received burns. On hearing the cries, he and his nephew Sukhvinder rushed towards the room where his sister was sleeping and saw that the door of the room was open. He saw that his sister Kulvinder Kaur was shouting and had received some burn injuries. On watching closely, he saw that some unknown person had thrown some corrosive substance on his sister's face. 3. During the course of investigation, the statement of Kulvinder Kaur was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She stated that her husband and niece Rupinder Kaur were having some kind of illicit relations and, due to which, she had admonished Rupinder Kaur. She further stated that Rupinder Kaur was doing GNM course at Ganganagar and she used to frequently visit her home situated at village 6-H. It was further stated that Rupinder Kaur often used to make calls to her home as well. On 24.12.2011, she along with her daughter Vishwajeet Kaur, son Robin Singh and niece Rupinder Kaur came to her marital home at 7TK from 6-H. She was scheduled to return back on 31.12.2011 at 6-H but for some reasons, she was detained for one more day. On 31.12.2011, she along with her children and Rupinder Kaur all went to sleep in the same room. At about 1 to 2 in the night, she heard Rupinder Kaur talking to somebody on a mobile phone. She woke up and asked Rupinder Kaur as to with whom she was talking. She gave a reply that it was a call by Rupendra Singh, husband of Kulvinder Kaur. At about 1 to 2 in the night, she heard Rupinder Kaur talking to somebody on a mobile phone. She woke up and asked Rupinder Kaur as to with whom she was talking. She gave a reply that it was a call by Rupendra Singh, husband of Kulvinder Kaur. Kulvinder Kaur also talked to him and went back to sleep. At about 3 am in the morning, she felt that somebody had thrown a corrosive substance on her face, due to which, she became blind. 4. During the course of the investigation, statements of numerous witnesses were recorded. Witness Bhagwan Sahai, a hotel manager stated that Rupendra Singh came to his hotel on 11.9.2011, 9.11.2011 and 23.11.2011 with a girl. Witness Jasmail Singh stated that when they asked Rupindra Kaur about the incident, she confessed that Rupendra Singh, the petitioner herein had given her an assurance that Kulvinder Kaur would be done away with and then he would marry her. Similar statement has been given by witness Avtar Singh. Witness Indra Mohan stated that Rupinder Singh purchased acid from his shop. 5. The Investigating Officer procured various mobile call details on record for the purpose of establishing that Rupendra Singh was in frequent contact with Rupinder Kaur. 6. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation and by a well reasoned order dated 15.6.2012, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner as stated above. 7. Now, the petitioner has assailed the order framing charges against him by way of instant revision petition. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri H.S.S. Kharlia assisted by Shri S.S. Dhillon appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no evidence on the record of the case to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It was argued that the only evidence on which the prosecution relies upon in this case is the extra judicial confession of the co-accused Rupinder Kaur, which cannot be read against the petitioner. Learned counsel further urged that there is nothing unusual in the fact that the petitioner used to talk to Rupinder Kaur. Learned counsel thus argued that charges have wrongly been framed against the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel further urged that there is nothing unusual in the fact that the petitioner used to talk to Rupinder Kaur. Learned counsel thus argued that charges have wrongly been framed against the petitioner in this case. Reliance in support of the contentions has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2012 SC 523 , Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) 310 and the case of Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 176. Learned counsel thus prayed that the instant revision petition be allowed and the order framing charges against the petitioner should be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the petitioner. He submitted that there is ample evidence on the record of the case to establish that the petitioner and Rupinder Kaur were having illicit relations with each other. He submitted that the petitioner connived with co-accused Rupinder Kaur and as an outcome of the conspiracy, acid was thrown by Rupendra Singh on the face of Kulvinder Kaur in order to kill her and remove the obstacle. He further submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is only required to form an opinion that there exist sufficient reasons for proceeding against the accused and nothing beyond that. Learned Public Prosecutor therefore prayed that the order framing charges against the petitioner does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as the material available on the record of the case. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is ample material on the record of the case for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner Rupendra Singh and the co-accused Rupinder Kaur were having illicit relations. The call made by Rupender Singh to Rupinder Kaur at about 1 O' Clock in the night is clearly indicative of the fact that the relations between the two persons were something beyond normal. The call made by Rupender Singh to Rupinder Kaur at about 1 O' Clock in the night is clearly indicative of the fact that the relations between the two persons were something beyond normal. Though, it is true that the extra judicial confession of a coaccused normally cannot be used to frame charge against another person but, in this case, there is independent evidence available on the record to substantiate the charge, thus, the said extra judicial confession can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. There are circumstances available on the record which establish that the petitioner was having illicit relations with the co-accused Rupindra Kaur. The mobile call details available on the record and the statement of the hotel manager namely Bhagwan Sahai clearly establish these facts. The record of the call details which has been collected by the I.O. clearly shows that the petitioner was continuously and frequently having conversations with the co-accused Rupinder Kaur. What would be the effect of the frequency of the talks would be for the trial court to consider when the prosecution evidence is finally appreciated. It prima facie appeals to this Court that the evidence which is available on the record is sufficient to uphold the order framing charges against the petitioner. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, at the stage of framing charge, there was sufficient material available on the record of the case to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and, as such, he is not entitled to be discharged from the aforesaid charges.Resultantly, the revision petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******