ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. The matter is taken up for final hearing with their consent. 2. Petitioners have faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302, 306 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. When the case was posted for hearing arguments on merit, an application was filed in terms of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to frame additional charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This application was filed on 21.09.2015 by the learned Public Prosecutor in the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikere sitting at Virajpet. The said application came to be allowed after contest on 18.11.2015. Learned Judge has allowed the application in its entirety and has invoked Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record do not even remotely make out a case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The attention of this Court is drawn to Ex.P7 the opinion given by Dr.Nagachari, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Smt.Vinitha who died within 7 years from the date of her marriage due to alleged torture meted out to her by her husband and his family members. 5. Entire records have been called for to verify Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is the report submitted by Dr. Nagachari and Dr. Sumithra. S who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased – Vinitha. It is specifically opined in Ex.P7 that cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent upon consumption of some irritant material, the nature of which could not be deducted by Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. Learned Judge has relied upon the evidence of PW-3 - Harinakshi, PW-6 - Chetan and PW-7 – Nithin to come to the conclusion that case is made for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore charge is to be framed to that effect. 7. Infact the Doctors have given final opinion only after the report from Forensic Science Laboratory. The said report was Negative. 7. Infact the Doctors have given final opinion only after the report from Forensic Science Laboratory. The said report was Negative. Mere suspicion would not take place of proof, however strong it may be, in a criminal case. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that asphyxia is an undisputed fact and there is no need to disbelieve the evidence of PWs’-3, 6 and 7 to invoke Section 302 of IPC. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel, the maximum punishment contemplated for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is either death penalty or imprisonment for life. More grave of the charges, more would be burden on the prosecution to prove such charge. In the light of report given by Dr. Nagachari based on Ex.P7, learned Judge could not have adopted attached importance to the oral evidence of the witnesses referred to above. 9. Hence, invoking of Section 302 of IPC in the present case appears to be not sustainable either in law or facts. Invoking of Section 304 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be considered as incorrect one, since death of the marriage lady took place 7 years from the date of marriage in the house of her in-laws. In the light of the serious allegations being made against the accused relating to the torture meted out to her and the dowry demand and the alleged receipts of for dowry, invoking sections 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P. Act cannot be found fault with. 10. In this view of the matter petition is allowed in part rejecting the insertion of Section 302 of IPC, but affirming the insertion of Section 304 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Petition is allowed in part. Insertion of section 302 of IPC is set aside and insertion of Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is affirmed. The entire LCR to be sent back to the trial Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible. All other contentions are kept open to be urged by the learned prosecutor as well as the accused. The entire LCR to be sent back to the trial Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible. All other contentions are kept open to be urged by the learned prosecutor as well as the accused. Whatever observation made by this Court is only for the limited purpose of disposing the matter and this shall not influence the learned Judge while trying the matter on merits.