At the charge framing stage, continuous demand for dowry and the existence of cruelty must be demonstrated, allowing for the presumption of guilt under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-3-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 396/2003, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge for offence punishable under S.304 - B and 498 - A read with S.34 of the IPC against the applicants.

2. The order is challenged on the ground that without any prima facie material for offence punishable under S.304 - B of the IPC, the Court below has framed the charge and thereby committed illegality.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the copy of the order impugned as also the copy of the charge - sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Mrs. Neetu alias Neelam (since deceased) was married to applicant No. 1 Haresh on 9-6-2003 at Dhamtari and she died by jumping into a dam on 14-9-2003 within three months of her marriage in abnormal circumstances. Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are father - in - law and mother - in - law of the deceased and applicants No. 4 and 5 are brothers - in - law of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage in abnormal circumstances. The applicants are husband and relatives of husband of the deceased. She further submits that for framing of charge under S.304 - B of the IPC the prosecution is required to collect material to show prima facie that the applicants had committed cruelty and torture in connection with demand of dowry upon the deceased son before her death. But the prosecution has not collected any material to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the applicants in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death and in absence of such material, charge under S.304 - B of the IPC is groundless and the Court below has committed illegality in framing charge under the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel further submits that copy of charge - sheet shows that on 14-9-2003 the deceased, one maid servant namely Kaushilya and applicant No. 3 Smt. Kavita Buxani were present in the house, the deceased went out of the house and after having a rickshaw she went to a dam which is away from the house of the applicants and jumped in the dam and thereby committed suicide. This clearly shows that at the time of leaving the house of the applicants by the deceased except applicant No. 3 none of the applicants was present, applicant No. 3 has not harassed or committed cruelty upon her at the time of leaving the house of the applicants. Material witness Kaushilya Bai, maid servant of the applicants, has not stated anything relating to torture or harassment. Relatives of the deceased i.e. mother Smt. Padma Devi, cousin Sanjay Kumar, younger brother Ajay Kumar Vidhani and uncle Mohan Das are not residents of Dhamtari. They are residents of Khandwa (M.P.) which is far away from Dhamtari. They have stated what the deceased had narrated to them, but on the date of commission of suicide, relatives of the deceased were not present at Dhamtari, they have not been communicated anything by the deceased or any person to show that on the date of death or soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the applicants in connection with demand of dowry, even they have not stated that the applicants have demanded dowry. The only allegation is that parents of the deceased had given less dowry and in - laws of the deceased used to demand golden bangles, Kangan and cash. But it is evident from inquest that at the time of inquest golden tops, necklace (Mangalsutra), locket, Kangan, two golden rings, silver payal and Bichia were found over