B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The deceased Saurav Bora was a young student leader and a social activist as well. He was killed by unknown assailants in the campus of Dibrugarh University in the evening hours on 27.5.1986. On the basis of oral information a fellow student Barbaruah Police Out Post recorded GD Entry No. 427. Thereafter a regular case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Dibrugarh Police Station. Within a few days, the case was handed over to the Assam CID. Finally, CBI was entrusted with the investigation on 21.3.1998. After investigation, CBI submitted Final Report on 26.6.1990 in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate Assam, Guwahati. However, the learned Magistrate did not accept the closure report filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr. P.C.) and instead took cognizance of the report against seven accused persons vide order dated 28.11.2006. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the court of Session, the case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, which was again transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. The said court finally framed charges under section 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned order dated 21.12.2009 against five accused persons namely, Sri Sarbananda Sonowal, Sri Dibya Hash Goswami, Sri Kusheswar Saikia, Sri Ramesh Dutta and Sri Mridul Dutta. In addition to that, charge under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the accused Sri Ramesh Dutta and Sri Mridul Dutta. The other accused were discharged. Being aggrieved with the framing of charges under Section 302 and 120(B) two, out of five accused persons, have approached this court by way of filing these criminal petitions under Sections 482 and 397 Cr. P.C.

2. The accused Sarbananda Sonowal was the President of All Assam Student Union (AASU) at the relevant time. The other petitioner Sri Dibya Hash Goswami was the Registrar of the University.

3. As noted earlier, the offence of murder was committed by unknown assailants. Hence, the case is based on circumstantial evidence.

4. The accused Sarbananda Sonowal was represented by Sri BK Mahajan, learned counsel, whereas, the accused Dibya Hash Goswami was represented by Sri AK Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. counsel. The criminal petitions were objected by the mother of the victim, represented by Sri BC Das, learned Sr. counsel. The CBI was represented by its Standing Counsel Sri AC Buragohain. Heard oral arguments of the respective counsels, who also read over the statements of witnesses, recorded by the Investigating Officer extensively.

5. Representing the petitioner Sarbananda Sonowal, learned counsel submitted that his case is at par with the discharged accused Sri Biren Baruah. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the agitation of the students and disciplinary action taken against few of the students by the University, the petitioner Sri Sarbananda Sonowal was only advising the students to suspend their agitation and with this limited role of the petitioner in the entire incident he cannot be roped in hatching the conspiracy or committing murder of the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that expulsion of the students was challenged before the High Court and after stay order from the High Court, the situation had calmed down in the month of January itself and as such this petitioner had no role in the murder of Saurav Bora. According to the learned counsel, other allegations are hearsay and based on surmises and conjectures.

6. Referring to various decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though a "grave suspicion" may justify the court to proceed against an accused a general suspicion on the basis of hearsay evidence cannot justify framing of criminal charges. The learned counsel also contended that there should be strong evidence that there was meeting of minds to hat