JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The applicants by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 31.8.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 359 of 2011 (State v. Rajkumar and others) whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act alongwith alternative charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the applicants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the death of the deceased was mere an accident. When she was pouring kerosene oil in the burning lamp, her ‘Saari’ suddenly caught fire and she received severe burn injuries on her body. She was immediately admitted to the hospital on 8.4.2011 by her father-in-law (applicant No. 3). She remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and a total cost of Rs. 1,36,600/-, incurred in her treatment, was borne by the applicants but unfortunately on 9.5.2011 she succumbed to her injuries. It is further submitted that during the aforesaid period of one month when she was remained admitted in the hospital, the police did not record her statement. The father and other relatives of the deceased were immediately informed about the accident and they reached the hospital on 10.4.2011 where the father of the deceased also donated blood to his daughter. It is further submitted that considering all these facts and circumstances the police submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. The applicants were enlarged on bail by this Court. 4. The applicants moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge under the aforesaid sections but the learned trial judge vide order dated 14.8.2015 rejected their discharge application and vide impugned order dated 31.8.2015 framed charges against the applicant not only under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act but also framed alternative charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances has arbitrarily rejected the application of discharge and framed additional charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. only in obedience of the direction/circular issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another v. State of Haryana; 2010 (71) ACC 920. Learned counsel has submitted that from the perusal of the entire record it is evident that there is no iota of evidence about culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. There is neither any direct nor any circumstantial evidence to prima facie support the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, the trial Court, acting mechanically has framed the additional charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. simply in compliance of the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the law laid down in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others v. State (Government of N.C.T. Of Delhi); 2013 (83) ACC 132. 7. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that the instant application is without any force and the judgment of Jasvinder Saini (supra) cited by the applicants has no application to the present case, the facts and situation of the two being entirely different. 8. Considered the submissions. 9. In a catena of judgments the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law that at the initial stage of framing charge even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for assuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh; AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction.” In Sachin Saxena @ Lucky v. State of U.P.; 2008 (62) ACC 454, a coordinate bench of this Court has held as under : “14. At the stage of framing a charge neither the defence case nor a meticulous examination of the evidence is needed and it has only to be seen by the Court whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial against the accused. Even if the material collected by the police during investigation casts a strong suspicion of the complicity of an accused, that is sufficient for framing the charge.” 10. The police has submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act after concluding the investigation. In the F.I.R. itself, lodged by the father of the deceased, it has been alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to applicant No. 2-Balraj on 3.6.2010 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Soon after the marriage, the husband and the in laws started making demand of a Hero Honda motorcycle and 50,000/- cash. On non fulfillment of the same they attempted to kill his daughter by putting her to flames on 8.4.2011 and thereafter they admitted her in Jeevan Joyti Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 9.5.2011. In the inquest and the post-mortem reports the cause of death is shown as burn injuries. The witnesses have stated about the culpability of the applicants during their interrogation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. hence the police submitted charge-sheet against the applicants. At the time of framing of charge the prosecution produced all these evidence collected during investigation alongwith the entire case diary before the trial judge, who, taking into consideration, framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. 11. There appears no illegality in framing of charges, in so far as the aforesaid sections are concerned as there was sufficient prima facie evidence which is required at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. 12. 11. There appears no illegality in framing of charges, in so far as the aforesaid sections are concerned as there was sufficient prima facie evidence which is required at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. 12. In so far as the alternative charge under Section 302/34I.P.c. is concerned, in Rajbir @ Raju’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court directed all the trial Courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 I.P.C. to the charge of Section 304-B I.P.C. so that the death sentence can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crime against woman. The copy of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with direction to circulate it to all the trial Courts. Therefore, if the learned trial Court in the present case, in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court, framed alternative charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. no illegality was done by it as the compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court is mandatory not only for the trial Courts but also for the High Courts. 13. Placing reliance on Jasvinder Saini’s case (supra), the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has clarified the law as laid down by its earlier bench in Rajbir’s case (supra). The Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case has held as under : “the aforesaid direction in Rajbir’s case was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits.” 14. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court the question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. or a dowry death punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. depends upon the facts, situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial, to prima facie support the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., the trial Court indeed and ought to frame the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 15. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial, to prima facie support the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., the trial Court indeed and ought to frame the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 15. Testing the facts of the instant case on the anvil of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case, it clearly appears that the facts of instant case are entirely distinguishable from Jasvinder Saini’s case. In Jasvinder Saini’s case charge-sheet was filed under Section 498-A, 304-B and 406 readwith 34 I.P.C. against four accused persons and later on a supplementary charge-sheet followed, implicating 4 more accused persons under Section 302 I.P.C. The case was committed to the sessions and the Sessions Judge, who heard the matter for framing of the charges, came to the conclusion by recording a clear finding that there was no evidence or material to justify the framing of charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Charges were accordingly framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B readwith 34 I.P.C. The trial proceeded and the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Meanwhile, the judgment of Rajbir’s case (supra) was passed by the Apex Court whereby directing all the trial Courts of India to add Section 302 I.P.C. as an alternative charge in every case punishable under Section 304-B IP.C. It was in the above background that the trial Court had to frame the alternative charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. at such belated stage, only in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court. The accused persons challenged that order before the High Court but the High Court also dismissed their claim finding itself to be duty bound to comply with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The accused persons approached the Supreme Court against the order of this Court and the Apex Court held that the directions issued in Rajbir’s case were not meant to be followed mechanically without due regard to the nature of evidence available in the case. The Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case held that the evidence assembled during the course of investigation and presented to the trial Court was not sufficient to call for framing of charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. 16. The Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case held that the evidence assembled during the course of investigation and presented to the trial Court was not sufficient to call for framing of charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. 16. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances when as many as 18 witnesses have already been examined and there was also a clear finding earlier recorded by the trial Court that there was no evidence or material on record to justify the framing of charge under Section 302 I.P.C. that the Supreme Court held that Rajbir’s case was not meant to be followed mechanically. 17. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned it shows that it is pending at the initial stage, no prosecution witness has been examined as yet. There is no earlier finding of learned trial judge to such effect that prima facie there is no evidence to support the charge of Section 302 of I.P.C. The prima facie evidence available on record shows that the deceased has met an untimely death within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances. No doubt her father-in-law had got her admitted to the hospital and her husband had also sustained burn injuries in the same occurrence but whether the incident was accidental, suicidal or homicidal, this cannot be ascertained at this very initial stage, without availability of evidence, to be led by both the parties during trial. If the applicants were found innocent they may be acquitted. Neither any view can be expressed by this Court with regard to their culpability nor about their innocence. The trial judge in its wisdom and after finding a prima facie case and also in compliance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Rajvir’s case, has framed alternative charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the applicants. Hence it cannot be said that the trial Court has acted illegally or mechanically. 18. Every criminal case stands on its independent footing and its decision depends on its peculiar facts and circumstances. The Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case has already held that it depends upon its own facts, situation and evidence of the case whether to frame additional alternative charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. or not. 19. In every case under Section 304-B of I.P.C. death of a young bribe is involved, who had to leave this world in her prime years. 19. In every case under Section 304-B of I.P.C. death of a young bribe is involved, who had to leave this world in her prime years. In every such case the death occurs within the four corners of her matrimonial home. In order to convict a person under Section 304-B, the prosecution has to prove the existence of some essential ingredients, one of such being “that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death.” 20. It is very difficult to prove an incident taking place inside the four corners of a house. Though by a deeming provision, the legislature has shifted this burden on the accused, but the initial burden to prove the existence of all the essential ingredients of Section 304-B is always on the prosecution. In absence of alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C., some times it happens that despite unnatural death of a young bride inside their house, all the accused go scot free only for the reason that the prosecution fails to lead any evidence regarding her maltreatment “soon before her death”. As a result, even a case where “death” is involved, ends in acquittal merely due to lack of evidence regarding an essential ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. 21. It is for this reason also, that framing of an alternative charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. alongwith charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. is necessary at the initial stage. 22. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. appears to be without any force and it is liable to be dismissed. 23. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed. ———————