JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged order dated 18.1.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the petitioners have been charged for offences under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 7.6.2020 a written docket was received in Police Station, Satwari whereby an information was received that a woman, namely, Mst. Rekha Sharma wife of the petitioner no. 1-Chander Kant Tiwari had fallen from the stairs of the house and had died. On the basis of this report, proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated. After conclusion of the proceedings, it was revealed that the deceased-Mst. Rekha Sharma was married to the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari about eight years ago and after the marriage the petitioner used to torture her. It was also found that on 22.4.2020, the mother of the deceased had invited her to attend Satsang. The petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari did not allow her to go. In the morning of 23.4.2020, when the deceased was insisting for going to her parental house, a quarrel took place between the deceased and her husband in which some relatives of the husband also participated. As a result of this quarrel, the deceased died. Accordingly FIR No. 116/2020 for offences under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was set into motion. 3. After investigation of the case, it was established that the deceased was married to the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari about eight years ago and out of this wedlock, one male baby was born who is aged about six years. It was also established that the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari used to harass the deceased on account of demands of dowry and he used to give beatings to her. On 24.4.2020, a satsang was organized in the parental house of the deceased but the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari did not allow his deceased-wife to participate in the said function. On 23.4.2020, a scuffle took place between petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari and the deceased on the said issue. The other two petitioners, namely, Sunehela Devi, the mother in law of the deceased and Sunita Tiwari, the sister in law of the deceased also participated in the quarrel and they started beating the deceased. The petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari is stated to have given a blow of rod on the head of the deceased which led to her death. 4. The other two petitioners, namely, Sunehela Devi, the mother in law of the deceased and Sunita Tiwari, the sister in law of the deceased also participated in the quarrel and they started beating the deceased. The petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari is stated to have given a blow of rod on the head of the deceased which led to her death. 4. The challan was laid before the trial court and vide the impugned order, the learned trial court after hearing the parties and after considering the material on record framed charges for offences under section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that even if the prosecution story is to be believed still then the petitioner-Chander Kant Tiwari cannot be charged for offence under section 302 IPC and at worst it can be a case of offence punishable under section 304 IPC as there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that there had been pre-meditation on the part of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel has further argued that in the case of petitioners no. 2 and 3, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, no offence is made out from the material on record. Learned Senior counsel has also submitted that as per the allegations made in the chargesheet, petitioner no. 2 is alleged to have thrown hot water on the body of the deceased but the postmortem report of the deceased does not support this version. He has further submitted that so far as the role of the sister in law i.e., petitioner no. 3 is concerned, even as per the prosecution case, the same is confined to holding of arm of the deceased which, according to the learned Senior counsel, does not in any manner suggest that she had participated in the alleged crime. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which are applicable to the instant case provide the guidelines for framing of charge and discharging an accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which are applicable to the instant case provide the guidelines for framing of charge and discharging an accused. As per Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if upon consideration of the documents referred to in Section 173 CrPC and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the Magistrate considers that the charge against the accused is groundless, he has to be discharged. As per Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if upon consideration of the material and after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the charge has to be framed against the accused. 8. At the time of framing of the charge, the probative value of the material on the record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge, the Court has to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and it has to be satisfied that commission of offence by the accused has taken place. The Court has to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Even where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which have not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. Thus, the Court has to determine whether a charge is to be framed against the accused or he is to be discharged and this would depend upon the facts of each case. 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case as are emanating from the challan, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was being harassed by the petitioners in connection with demands of dowry right from the time she had entered into wedlock with petitioner no. 1. There are statements of the parents and sister of the deceased on record of the challan which clearly show that the relations between the deceased and her in laws were not good. The evidence shows that she was being harassed in connection with demands of dowry. 1. There are statements of the parents and sister of the deceased on record of the challan which clearly show that the relations between the deceased and her in laws were not good. The evidence shows that she was being harassed in connection with demands of dowry. According to PW-Surekha Sharma, the sister of the deceased, the petitioners were asking the deceased to give her minor son in adoption to petitioner no. 3 and in this connection, she was being subjected to harassment. So, there is sufficient material on record of the challan to show that the relations between the deceased and her in laws i.e., petitioners herein were not cordial. 10. The star witness of the case is the six years old minor son of petitioner no. 1 and the deceased, namely, Adhi Sharma. He, in his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, has stated that on the day of occurrence he was called on telephone by his friend but he asked him to wait as a quarrel was going on in his house. He further stated that during the quarrel, his father took up an iron rod and gave its blow on the head of his mother. He further stated that his grandmother-petitioner no. 2 threw hot water on her mother whereas, his aunt-petitioner no. 3, who had come to their house, was holding the arm of his mother. 11. PW-Surekha Sharma, the sister of the deceased has, in her statement, recorded under Section 164 CrPC stated that PW-Adhi Sharma had narrated the aforesaid facts to her. She has further stated that on reaching the house of the petitioners, after getting the information about the death of her sister, she closely watched the dead body and found burn marks on its belly and body. 12. From the foregoing statements of the witnesses, it is clear that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the relations between the deceased and the petitioners were not cordial. On the fateful day, a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 had given a blow of iron rod on the head of the deceased, petitioner no. 2 had thrown hot water on her body while petitioner no. 3 was holding her arms. From this it is clear that all the three petitioners had participated in the attack that they had launched upon the deceased. The petitioner no. 1 had given a blow of iron rod on the head of the deceased, petitioner no. 2 had thrown hot water on her body while petitioner no. 3 was holding her arms. From this it is clear that all the three petitioners had participated in the attack that they had launched upon the deceased. There is no material on record to even remotely suggest that the quarrel was either started by the deceased or that she had provoked the fight. In the absence of any such material on record, it cannot be stated that it is a case of sudden fight as has been claimed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. 13. It has been vehemently contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that there were no burn injuries on the body of the deceased, which, according to the learned Senior counsel, is clear from a perusal of the postmortem report. I am afraid, the contention of the learned Senior counsel is not supported by the material on record. In the postmortem report, under the head 'External Appearance', it is clearly mentioned that there was focal peeling of the skin present over the abdomen, left outer portion of the breast of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that these signs were on the dead body because of decomposition and not because of burn injury. It is a fact of common knowledge that peeling of skin can also be caused by burn injuries. The question whether the peeling of skin was due to burn injuries or the same was due to decomposition of the body can be determined only during the trial of the case after the medical expert is examined and cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. At the stage of framing of charge when there is a definite evidence on record that the deceased was thrown hot water by petitioner no. 2 while the petitioner no. 3 kept on holding her arms coupled with the observations made in the postmortem report of the deceased, a case for framing of charge under section 302 of the IPC against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 is also made out. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned and lucid order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. 2 and 3 is also made out. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned and lucid order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly along with connected applications.