IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Surendra Singh-I, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have assailed the impugned order dated 3.9.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Basti in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Suresh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 627 of 2014 under Section 498-A, 304-B and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act P.S. Paikoliya, District- Basti. By the impugned order, the trial court has rejected the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the revisionists Smt. Mewati Devi and Ram Suresh and has directed to frame charge under Section 498-A and 302 IPC against them.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the Investigating Officer had found that the occurrence has taken place after more than seven years of marriage and therefore charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC against them. The learned trial court vide order dated 20.5.2019 instead of Section 306 IPC altered the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, subsequently, revisionist filed a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order dated 27.6.2019 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in Application u/s 482 No. 23601 of 2001, then the trial court vide impugned order dated 3.9.2019 held that charge under Section 304-B is not made out and modified the charge after dropping Section 304-B IPC and passed the order by framing the charge under Section 498-A and 302 IPC.

3. It has been further submitted that the trial court passed the impugned order against the weight of evidence on record and without application of judicial mind which is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the criminal revision and submitted that the revisionist no.1 is the mother-in-law and revisionist no.2 is husband of the deceased Chandrakanti. In the FIR their direct role has been assigned in committing the murder of deceased-Chandrakani for not providing the additional demand of dowry. During investigation, the prosecution witnesses have also supported the prosecution case as well as during trial, P.W.-1 Mani Ram Verma and P.W.-2 Harishchandra . The revisionist harassed the deceased for obtaining additional dowry during non-fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry. They have murdered her by burning.

5. From the perusal of the FIR, which is annexed as annexure no.1 to the revision No. 324 of 2023, it transpires that the Maniram Verma submitted a written report in police station Paikoliya, District Basti on 9.9.2014 at 20:03 o’clock regarding occurrence dated 31.8.2014 alleging that her daughter Chandrak29anti was married to Ram Suresh s/o Chhotelal five years earlier. He had given dowry as per his status but her daughter’s husband and his family member were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to harass his daughter to obtain golden chain and motorcycle. Her daughter had told him about the dowry demand made by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and devars. Due to non- fulfilment of their demand for additional dowry, on 31.8.2014 her husband Ramsuresh, her father-in-law Chhotelal and mother-in-law Mewati Devi and Devar Umesh and Gopal sprinkled kerosene oil on the Chandrkali and brutally burned her. Due to the burn injury she died on 1.9.2014 at about 8 p.m. in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharji Hospital, Lucknow, and on receiving information the informant visited the hospital and to participated in postmortem and cremation ceremony of his daughter. He lodged an FIR on 9.9.2014.

6. Before examining the merits of the present case, the ambit, scope and power of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. should be discussed and ascertained.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of its judgement has narrated the ambit and scope of revision by the High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. which a