ORDER : Sushil Kumar Palo, J. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the order dated 12/03/2015 passed by the ASJ, Mauganj, Rewa in S.T. No.362/2014, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, Sangeeta Dubey, the daughter of complainant/Vikas Dwivedi was married to petitioner No.2/Chandrabhushan Dwivedi @ Rajesh Dwivedi about 13 years ago. Due to their wedlock two children are born who are now 10 years and 7 years old. Her father-in-law Lalta Dwivedi is petitioner No.6, placed demand of cash two years after her marriage. After this episode, Sangeeta made to understand things and sent back to her maternal home after beating her. Anil @ Suresh Dwivedi, the brother-in-law of the deceased, whenever, used to visit the village from his place of posting at CRPF used to threat that if the complainant interferes in their affairs, Sangeeta will be dealt with and will be dumped behind the central jail. Her father, the complainant and his son Omkarnath did not replied to him, thinking that Sangeeta will be put to more harassment. On 15/04/2014 at about 8:30 Sangeeta informed her father that her brother-in-law Anil @ Suresh Dwivedi is beating her for last 3 days, for the reason that a Steel Gagra which was taken by the daughter-in-law of Anil earlier was brought back by Sangeeta. Because of which Anil @ Suresh Dwivedi and his wife Buti Bai @ Asha beating her. Her father somehow consoled her and told her she will come back in the evening. On 15/04/2014, at about 6 O'clock, he was informed by Dallu that he received a call from Harishanker stating that, because of this Steel Gagra episode, his daughter has been beaten badly. He went to Harishanker and asked about the incident. Harishanker told him that Sangeeta was taken to hospital, Mauganj. He went to hospital Mauganj. Sangeeta was referred to Hospital, Rewa. He took Sangeeta there, accused/Anil @ Suresh Dwivedi met him and abusing Sangeeta told him that since she arrive, she has been causing losses to his family. Had he been in the service, he could have dealt her and cut her into peaces. Sangeeta was unconscious. They arrived at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital at 9 pm. 3. He took Sangeeta there, accused/Anil @ Suresh Dwivedi met him and abusing Sangeeta told him that since she arrive, she has been causing losses to his family. Had he been in the service, he could have dealt her and cut her into peaces. Sangeeta was unconscious. They arrived at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital at 9 pm. 3. On seeing her hand during treatment, the Doctor informed Vikas Dwivedi that some injection has been administered on her wrist. Therefore, he marked it by circle by a red dot pen. There seems to be some poison injected into her body. When he saw Sangeeta's back, there were several injuries and also on the elbow. Expecting that she will recover, he did not say anything to anyone. On 19/04/2014, at about 1 am, Sangeeta passed away. Sangeeta died because of cruelty caused to her by Anil Dwivedi, his wife Buti Bai, Rajneesh Dwivedi, Bablu @ Prabhakar Dwivedi, Manish Dwivedi and his wife Sudha Dwivedi. Accused Anil Dwivedi threatened him, that Chandrabhushan and his two children are living with him in the family, if anything is said against the family members, they will cut Chandrabhushan & the children into pieces. 4. The police station, Mauganj after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 306, 498-A read with section 34 of IPC. 5. After committal of the case, learned ASJ, Mauganj framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302, 498-A with Section 34 of IPC. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, the order dated 12/03/2015 has been assailed on several grounds. It is contended that, the FIR, the statements of the parents of the deceased do not disclose, offence against all the family members. Marriage was solemnized 13 years prior to the incident. Therefore, presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of Evidence Act would not be available. Framing of charge of offence under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of vague allegations made by the father of the deceased. This allegation was levelled in his statements to the police after one month of the incident. 7. The deceased was under treatment for malaria and there is no direct evidence of any homicidal death. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposing the contentions submitted that the deceased died due to poisoning as per the postmortem report. This allegation was levelled in his statements to the police after one month of the incident. 7. The deceased was under treatment for malaria and there is no direct evidence of any homicidal death. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposing the contentions submitted that the deceased died due to poisoning as per the postmortem report. It is also contended that several injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which is enumerated in the Naksha Panchanama dated 20/04/2014. The postmortem report show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before her death. He also contended that the deceased was at her matrimonial home before her death. The statements of Shivraj Dwivedi, Prema Dwivedi, the parents and Smt. Dwivedi wife of Omkarnath Dwivedi supports the prosecution story. 9. Perused the police diary. 10. The injuries caused to the deceased could not be self inflicted and it was of ante-mortem injuries. Deceased died due to poisoning. The viscera report is awaited. The police diary show that viscera was seized on 12/06/2014 and has been sent for FSL, Sagar for analysis. On the same day, the query report dated 23/07/2014 show that deceased was treated by medical officer Mauganj. She had consumed poison and there were marks of injury on her body. Therefore, she was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa. The allegations levelled in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not show any prima facie evidence of administration of any injection, which could be poisonous for he health of deceased. 11. It is also evident that the death has been caused after 13 years of marriage, therefore, presumption under Sections 113-A & 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not available in the present case. 12. The observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jasminder Saini v. State of NCT of Delhi reported as (2013) 7 SCC 256 is very relevant in the present circumstances. The Apex Court observed, "the question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or a dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC depends upon the fact situation and the evidence in the case. The Apex Court observed, "the question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or a dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC depends upon the fact situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under Section 302 of IPC the trial Court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B is established." 13. In the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to hold that the trial Court acted mechanically in framing charge under Section 302 of IPC without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case. It is also observed that the viscera report has not been considered by framing the charge. 14. That being so, the order passed by the trial Court impugned order dated 13/03/2015 is clearly unsustainable and shall have to be set aside. But, that would not prevent the trial court to frame charges against the petitioners. Setting aside the order impugned, the trial Court is directed to consider the viscera report and the preliminary evidence available on the record and then reframe charges accordingly, in view the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana reported as (2010) 15 SCC 116 . 15. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.