Cr. Revision No.1894/1999. 21/9/2011 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State, which is respondent No.2. In the order-sheet, there is an office note dated 10.5.2001 that the opposite party No.1 i.e. complainant has been served but no appearance has been put in from his side. The record of the trial Court has been called and therefore the complainant would in the normal course have knowledge of the pendency of this revision. It appears that after the police report the complainant and the witnesses were examined under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr. P.C. and thereafter cognizance was taken, which means that the case was treated as a complaint case. According to the facts alleged, the victim lady died of burn injuries on 28.7.1987, within seven years of her marriage. The death took place in her matrimonial home. However, in the statement of the complainant, there appear to be self contradictory averments regarding instigating the girl committing suicide and thereafter pouring kerosene oil put on her and setting her on fire. Learned trial Court has framed alternative charge of 304-B and 306/34 IPC. I have gone through the impugned order of the trial Court which does not deal effectively with the statements of the witnesses by analysing them for their credibility. It also appears that the provisions of Section 202(2) proviso, Section 204(2) and Section 221 of the Cr. P.C. have not been kept in mind by the Court below before passing the impugned order of summoning the accused. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.9.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.103/98 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court. The record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be dispatched to the trial Court forthwith. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice YS/AK