JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Appellant, Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Nayan has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years, under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three months additionally vide judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Nawada in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2013/71 of 2014. 2. The trial commenced on account of framing of charge against the appellant under Section 304B/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC, 201/34 of the IPC causing murder/dowry death and disappearance of the evidence relating to aforesaid event in order to screen themselves, concerning death of Tunni Kumari, wife of appellant while she was staying at her Sasural. 3. The question which arose attracts deep consideration over manner of trial having been sailed before the learned lower court. Detailed discussion relating to scrutiny of evidences available on the record is forbidden save and except that on a written report submitted by the informant on 24.06.2016, Warsaliganj P.S. Case No.62/2016 was registered having an allegation that marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2004 whereupon she had gone to her Sasural. After staying for a month, she came back to her Naihar where staying for some time her ‘Duragman’ effected on 18.02.2015 and since thereafter, she remained at her Sasural where begotten a son. During intervening period, she was subjected to torture for fulfillment of demand of dowry and for that prosecution party visited so many times to persuade them but in vain. Lastly when they gone on 19.06.2016, found his daughter as well as son missing and so apprehended that both might have been murdered on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 4. Right from the initial stage there happens to be disclosure with regard to Aakash, aged about seven month son of appellant Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Nayan as well as the alleged deceased Tunni Kumari even admitted under Ext.A. He became missing is found admitted. 4. Right from the initial stage there happens to be disclosure with regard to Aakash, aged about seven month son of appellant Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Nayan as well as the alleged deceased Tunni Kumari even admitted under Ext.A. He became missing is found admitted. During course of evidence, it is apparent that his absence has not been explained and in the aforesaid background, charge relating thereto would have been framed against the appellant and other acquitted co-accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC or under Section 364 of the IPC which the learned lower court failed to exercise. It is needless to say that no charge relating to him has been framed nor, his absence could be adjudged under Section 304B of the IPC and in the aforesaid background, more or less, instant appeal carries the same nature of controversy which had been perceived under Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.139 of 2015 (Pritam Sao Vs. The State of Bihar) which was referred to DB after issuance of show cause to the acquitted accused. In the aforesaid Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.139 of 2015 charge was framed relating to death of two minor children under Section 302 IPC but, the lower court failed to acknowledge the same during course of analyzing the same at the stage of judgment. So far this trial is concerned, the learned lower court failed to frame charge concerning Aakash. That means to say, by non-framing of charge relating to missing of Aakash, miscarriage of justice has been perceived. 5. Jurisdiction of appellate court on that very score had already been discussed in detailed in connection with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.139 of 2015, on account thereof same is not repeated. Furthermore, as per Patna High Court Rules, the penal provisions prescribing sentence more than ten years is to be considered by the D.B therefore it looks prudent to refer the matter to DB, so that it be decided along with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.139 of 2015. 6. Accordingly, the matter is referred before the Division Bench and as the point involved is of great importance and further, is being confronted frequently, therefore, office is directed to list within fortnight after taking permission from Hon’ble the Chief Justice along with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.139 of 2015.