( 1 ) THESE two revisions are directed against the order dated 19-9-2000 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, discharging A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 202 read with 34 of the IPC and proceeding to frame charges against A-1, A-2 and a-4 for the said offences. While the State has filed Cri. R. P. No. 1077 of 2000 against the order of discharge of A-3, A-1, A-2 and A-4 have filed cri. R. P. No. 520 of 2001 for framing charges against them.

( 2 ) CERTAIN-UNDISPUTED facts are that A-1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased-Surekha while A-2 and A-3 are her sister-in-laws and A-4 is her husband. The father of the deceased is an Advocate at Huvina- hadagli and she was given in marriage to A-4 while A-3, Uma was married to the cousin of the victim. Since differences arose between the accused family and the uncle of the victim, A-3 came to reside with her mother and brother and it appears that trouble started to the victim thereafter. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 insisted the deceased to settle some property in the name of the husband of A-3 and to advice her father who was the joint family member consisting of himself and his elder brother, the father-in-law of A-3. It appears that the victim once informed the same to her father. It is this circumstance which made A-l to A-3 in particular to harass the deceased. It is alleged that on 12-4- 1996 when the deceased was washing her face in the bathroom, A-l, the mother-in-law of the deceased appears to have splashed kerosene on her and the victim who smelt kerosene, turned back and found her mother- in-law standing behind her with a matchstick and told her that she would not allow her to live and therefore threw a lighted matchstick. Thus, she sustained 30% burn injuries according to the doctor of Shirol at Gadag who examined her for the first time. It is also the case of the prosecution that at that time A-2 to A-4 were sitting in the drawing room viewing television. The fact that she sustained burn injuries was communicated to the complainant, the victim's father by her husband over phone and all of them took her to Gadag hospital from where the victim was taken to her native place Huvinahadagli where the doctor informed the complainant that she sustained 60% burn injuries. Thereafter, the complainant shifted her to City Hospital, Davanagere. She died on 3-5-1996. The prosecution mainly relies on the dying declaration of the deceased-Surekha. According to the prosecution she made a statement to the police officer and the hospital authorities when she was brought to the hospital and again made a second statement at Davanagere on 24-4-1996 and the Tahsildar was also summoned when she gave a statement. It is contended that she made a statement at the earliest possible time stating that it is a case of stove burst while on 24-4-1996 she implicated A-l for the commission of murder. It is alleged in her statement made on 24-4-1996 recorded by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gadag in the presence of the doctor at Davanagere that her sister-in-laws viz. , A-2 and A-3 also harassed her stating that no dowry was given to A-4 at the time of marriage and that her father and her senior uncle refused to give share to the husband of A-3. She has directly involved A-1 as the person who poured kerosene on her. The Trial Court while considering the arguments canvassed on behalf of the accused found no sufficient material against A-3 for framing charges and therefore, passed an order of discharge and proceeded to frame charges against the other accused.

( 3 ) THE State has questioned the order of discharge while the other accused persons are aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge who proceeded to frame charges against them. The learned Sessions judge has relied on certain pronouncements of this Court and the Supreme court on this question. Law on this question is settled in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affai