Point of Law: Stage of considering the discharge application, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.

ORDER :

1. The Revision Petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No. 57/2018 whereby their application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Sandesh Chouta appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent/State.

3. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 7 to 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 respectively in the charge-sheet filed by the respondent/Police in connection with Crime No. 98/2017 of Banahatti Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 120(b), 302, 307, 109 R/w. 149 of IPC.

4. The incident has taken place on 30.09.2017 around 8:00 a.m. wherein the accused persons are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and assaulted the deceased by name Chikkayya with the weapons they were carrying, allover his body and committed his murder.

5. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the case which was rejected by the learned session Judge vide impugned order, holding that the prosecution papers and the investigation prima-facie discloses the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the heinous of fence and there is no reason to discharge them.

6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners are not named in the first information report and subsequently they are implicated on the basis of the statements alleged to have been given by CW-18 and 19, but perusal of their statements clearly shows that the petitioners are not identified by them. He contends that there is no test identification parade conducted and the statements of CW-18 and 19 and the statements of CW-20 and 21 are contrary to each other. It is his further contention that, the trial Court has not applied its mind to the relevant aspects of the case while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. as it could not have acted as mouth piece of prosecution but ought to have passed the order considering the broad probabilities of the case.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused, as framing of charge affects a person’s liberty substantially, therefore proper consideration of material is necessary. He contends that the Court can not act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basis infirmities etc. if it is satisfied that the evidence produced gives rise to some suspicion and not grave suspicion against the accused, the Court can discharge the accused. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the offence and for that purpose, the Court can sift the evidence and if the material gathered fall short of minimum legal requirements, the accused deserves to be discharged.

8. In support of his above submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court:

1. Onkar Nath Mishra and Others vs. State of Delhi and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 561

2. State through Inspector of Police vs. A. Arun Kumar and Another, (2015) 2 SCC 417

3. State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi, AIR 2018 SC 18

4. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568

9. The learned HCGP supporting the impugned order has sought to reject the petition contending that there is prima-facie material to show th