Criminal Revision No. 1303/2009 12.07.2011 Shri P.S. Tomar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 17.7.2009 passed by learned Additional Judge to 7th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sagar in S.T. No.113/09 by which the charges of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case in short is that Sonika Singh died in the midnight of 18th-19th July 2008. She was found in a well of village Padariya. She expired within seven years of her marriage. Initially, the police had examined various witnesses of the village including the accused persons themselves. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased were examined. They had alleged against father-in-law of the deceased regarding dowry demand and harassment. Thereafter, they have implicated the relatives of the husband of the deceased including the applicants. The applicant No.1 is a grandfather of the applicant No.4. The applicant No.2 is aunt of the applicant No.4, whereas the applicant No.3 is daughter-in-law of the applicant No.2 and the applicant No.4 is husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment were made against Daroga Singh, who is father of the applicant No.4. It is clearly mentioned in the statements given by the parents of the deceased that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased were good persons, they were not harassing the deceased for any dowry demand. After two months of such statements, the parents and other relatives of the deceased have stated that the applicants were also harassing the deceased for demand of dowry etc. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if evidence is taken as it is, then subsequent statements given by the parents shall amount to be afterthoughts and looking to the previous statements, subsequent statements cannot be believed because there was no allegation of dowry demand and harassment against the applicants in the previous statements of parents of the deceased. The applicants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and, therefore, such charges cannot be framed against the applicants. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that case is not so simple as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. Initially, the parents of the deceased have stated as per the information given by the deceased. But in the present case, there is a star witness namely Mahendra Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased who has stated that he took some luggage relating to dowry to the house of the deceased and her husband then the applicants have quarreled with him. They demanded 20 gms. gold and cash of Rs.70,000/-. The subsequent statements of parents of the deceased were given on the basis of transaction, which took place between the parties and, therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent statements given by the parents are not to be believable. If no rebuttal is directed by the applicants and looking to the statement of witness Mahendra Singh, all the applicants shall be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and, therefore, learned trial Judge has framed the charges in a proper manner. No illegality has been done in framing of such charges against the applicants. At the time of framing of charges, yard stick is that if evidence remains as it is without any rebuttal, and the accused persons can be convicted for any offence then charges of such offence shall be framed. In the present case, looking to the statements of parents of the deceased and statements of other witnesses like Mahendra Singh etc., it appears that some transaction of demand of dowry was made and, therefore, it appears that the parents of the deceased have stated initially on the basis of information received from the deceased, but thereafter they have stated on the basis of transaction took place between the parties, therefore, at present it cannot be said that subsequent statements given by parents shall be disbelieved. After considering the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution if same is not rebutted then certainly the applicants can be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Under such circumstances, the charges under Section 304-B of IPC shall be framed against the applicants and if trial Court has framed such charges then it cannot be stated that the trial Judge has committed any error or illegality in framing of such charges. Under such circumstances, no interference can be made by way of this revision. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed in limine. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj