1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.RC. is directed against the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in Sessions Case No. 30/2000 whereby the trial court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offences under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The accused-petitioner has challenged the order framing charge by this revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned dated 28.6.2002. I have also carefully gone through the police investigation papers filed by the investigating Officer under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan Papers) and statements of various prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer as also the post mortem report of deceased Abdul Rehman aged 22 years.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased Abdul Rehman fell himself in the well of the accused-petitioner and committed suicide. He died due to drowning and, therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused-petitioner.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously controverted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the deceased was taken from his house by the accused-petitioner and thereafter, his dead body was found in the well of the accused-petitioner. There were number of injuries on the person of deceased which is ante mortem as is evident from the "Fard Surat Lash" and the post mortem report of the deceased. The deceased was to get a sizeable amount from the accused- petitioner for the work done by him and on various occasions, deceased made demand for money, which accused failed to pay and the deceased was taken from his house in presence of his brother and mother in the evening of 10.7.2000 and he was found dead in early morning of 11.7.2000 in the well of accused-petitioner situate near the house of accused-petitioner and, therefore, according, to the prosecution, it was the accused and his wife, who killed Abdul Rehman and thereafter, thrown the dead body in the well.

5. I have carefully gone through the first information report and statements of Bundu Shah brother of the deceased, Smt. Jannat mother of deceased, Rustam, Smt. Jetun, Nijamuddin, Basti Shah, Sattar Shah and other witnesses and also perused the post mortem report of the deceased. As many as six injuries were found on the person of the deceased including the fracture of right knee of patella etc. All these injuries were ante mortem in nature. The opinion of the Medical Board is that death was caused due to asphyxia. There were injuries on chest, abdomen, hands and on other parts of the body. Injuries appear to be serious in nature. Semi digested food matters were present in the stomach. There was no water in the stomach as per medical report. Thus, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died due to drowning, appears to be without foundation and prima facie cannot be accepted at this stage. From the statements of various prosecution witnesses, post mortem report and the fact that the deceased was taken by the accused with regard to settlement of money dispute as from the statement it appears that deceased was entitled to sizeable amount from the accused on account of construction work done by the deceased and the fact that within few hours from taking of deceased from his house in presence of his brother, mother and others, he was found dead in the well of the accused-petitioner with the serious injuries, which were ante mortem. The theory of drowning as propounded by the accused and his defence witnesses cannot be prima facie accepted at this stage.

6. It is settled law that at the stage of passing order in terms of sections 227 and 228 Cr.RC., the Court is required to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if after