ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No. 68/2019, whereby the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charge against the applicants for offence under Section 304B/149 of the IPC. 2. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that deceased Smt. Rajni Kewat died on 27.9.2018 due to burn injuries received by her on 24.9.2018 at the matrimonial house. Her marriage was solemnized with applicant No. 1 in the year 2017. In dying declaration given by the deceased on 24.9.2018, she has clearly stated that she herself set her on fire and no family members and in-laws are responsible for the same. He would further submit that the deceased and husband are residing separately and just to harass other family members, omnibus allegations were made. He contended that there is no sufficient material adduced by the prosecution for framing of charge. Even whole of the prosecution taken as it is, then also, no offence is made out against the present applicants. Therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order framing charge. 3. On the other hand, Ms Priyamvada Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State, would submit that in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. mother of the deceased and other family members have categorically stated that the deceased was harassed by the present applicants for bringing less dowry and due to such harassment, she has taken extreme step to end her life within one year of her marriage. So, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the applicants. She would further submit that at the time of recording of dying declaration by the doctor, her husband, who is an accused, was present. So, dying declaration itself is doubtful and as such, the present revision deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the revision. 5. She would further submit that at the time of recording of dying declaration by the doctor, her husband, who is an accused, was present. So, dying declaration itself is doubtful and as such, the present revision deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the revision. 5. To prove a dowry death, the prosecution is to prove that there was unnatural death of a woman and that woman had been married seven years preceding her aforesaid unnatural death and further soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death.” If a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial house within seven years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives. 6. It is settled law that while framing of charge, appreciation of evidence is not required and at that stage, it is also not desirable for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the material, nor for shifting the materials placed by the prosecution and the only thing which needs to be considered is whether there is existence of ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631 has held as under: “3......The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.” 8. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of framing charge as passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the order impugned is affirmed. The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court shall not be construed to be an opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law.