Crl. Revision No. 1238 of 2011 (O&M) **** Ombir vs. State of Haryana Present: Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** The petitioner has filed the present revision challenging the action of the trial Court in charging him under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Wife of the petitioner died of burning. In her dying declaration she specifically named the petitioner and the co-accused as having set her on fire. Learned counsel has argued that there is statement of a neighbour to the effect that the deceased was saying that if she is saved this time she would not repeat this kind of act. He has also sought to rely upon the statement of doctor who has testified that the deceased was under treatment with him for some mental ailment. In my opinion at this stage it cannot be said that the order framing charge is so palpably perverse that it is liable for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the unequivocal dying declaration of Sheela, the deceased, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been wrongly charged. Petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE July 05, 2011 sunita