Nagendra Rai, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1996, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1994, by which he has discharged the accused-opposite parties at the stage of framing of the charges on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against them.

2. One Dropadi Devi, widow of deceased Baijnath Jha, lodged a fardbeyan on 16.4.1992 at 3 p.m. at Sadar Hospital, Saharsa, alleging, inter alia, that at 7 p.m. on the same date, she was preparing meal and her daughter-Sharda Kumari and son Ashish Kumar Jha were sitting in the court-yard. In the meantime, the deceased who was working as a Peon in the Saharsa College, came with certain house-hold articles. After handing over the said articles to his daughter, he asked for a meal as he was feeling hungry. In the meantime, two unknown young people came and they said that the deceased was called by Masraph. The deceased told that he was taking meal. Thereafter, one of the unknown persons caught hold of him and the other took out a pistol and fired causing injury to her husband, who fell down. The deceased uttered that the brother of Masraph had fired at him. She also stated in the fardbeyan that one Indu Bhushan Yadav had written a love letter to her daughter Guria. Said Indu Bhushan Yadav was the brother-in-law of Prof. Umesh Yadav and this fact was brought to the notice of the said Professor and the aforesaid boy was reprimanded by him.

3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Saharsa PS. Case No. 209 of 1992 was registered against unknown. The Police proceeded with the investigation and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-opposite parties. After cognizance and commitment, they were put on trial. At the stage of framing of the charges, it was said on their behalf that no case for proceeding against them was made out and, thereafter, the trial Court, by the impugned order, discharged the opposite parties from the said charges, which order has been challenged by the State in this case.

4. I have perused the case-diary. From the perusal of the case- diary, it appears that prior to the date of the occurrence, opposite party No. 1 Ali Bhutto, who is cousin of Masraph, was assaulting a The lawala and the deceased intervened and, thereafter, opposite party No. 1 had threatened him to murder. The materials further show that opposite party No. 1 Ali Bhutto is cousin brother of Masraph and the deceased in his statement has stated that the brother of Masraph had fired at him. The materials further show that he was collecting toll, along with Masraph. Admittedly, no T.I. Parade was held The proper course in this case would have been to hold a T.I. Parade. But non-holding of the T.I. Parade is not fatal to the prosecution case and even a witness may identify a person at the trial (see Yadu Nath Singh V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 363).

5. The materials, available on the record, in my view, make out a prima facie case for far as opposite party No. 1 Ali Bhutto is concerned. The trial Court, in my view, was not justified in discharging him. The trial court failed to appreciate that at the stage of framing of the charge, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials may justify the framing of the charge (see I. & L. I. V/s. Anil Kumar Bhurja, AIR 1980 SC Page 52).

6. So far as opposite parties No. 2 to 4 are concerned, I have perused the case-diary and except that they happened to be friends of opposite party Ali Bhutto, no other material has come with regard to the fact that they have hand in the crime and as such so far as their discharge is concerned, the same is justified and requires no interference.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed in part and the impugned order discharging opposite party No. 1-Ali Bhutto is set aside and the trial court will now proceed with the trial. So far as opposite parties No. 2 to 4, namely, Sanjay Ram, Gajendra Yadav and Pradeep