The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the parties.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, dated 27.04.2012 by virtue of which he has discharged respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in file No. 60/Murder arising out of FIR No.62/2009 registered at Police Station, Budhal, for commission of offences under Sections 302/120-B/201/195-A RPC. Since this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Revision can see the illegality or impropriety of any order passed by the Court below, so I am deciding the matter, accordingly on merits.

3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that on 12.09.2009, a source report was received in Police Station, Budhal that the dead body of one Karnail Singh alias Rano was lying on a thoroughfare at Phalni in suspicious circumstances. The proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were started to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. On examination of the dead body, it was found that the deceased had multiple wounds on his head and other parts of the body and it was concluded that it is a case of murder. Accordingly, murder case under Section 302 RPC was registered and investigation started. During the investigation, nothing conclusive came to the fore and in the meantime, a writ petition bearing OWP No. 508/2010, came to be filed in this Court by the son of the deceased and this Court directed for constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) for conducting the investigation within 12 weeks. Thereafter, the SIT collected the evidence and came to the conclusion that the crime was committed by accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 3 after hatching a conspiracy. The SIT during investigation concluded that deceased was working in Ration Depot of accused No.1 since 7 to 8 years, and he was having friendly relationship with accused No.1 and his relatives. It was also found that deceased was a flirt and was having illicit relationship with the mother of accused No.4-Nissar Ahmed. A day before the alleged occurrence accused, Saleem Khan, Sher Khan, Zamarud Khan, Nissar Ahmed and Tilak Raj were found talking about the illicit relationship of deceased with mother of respondent No.4 and were discussing about bringing an end to their relationship by killing the deceased.

4. On 12.09.2009, at about 09/10 p.m., accused 2 and 7, Sher Khan and Tilak Raj were travelling in a Maruti Car towards Phalni and they stopped the car at some place and informed the accused No.5-Abdul Rashid that deceased had consumed liquor and it was high time to kill him. Thereafter, they left for Phalni and on the same day the dead body of the deceased was found on the road side. During investigation, accused No. 2-Sher Khan was found standing there and he was talking with accused No.5-Abdul Rashid in detail about the said incident. Accused No.5-Abdul Rashid, accused No.6-Barkat Hussain and accused No.7-Tilak Raj were arrested and they confessed the guilt, whereas the accused No. 4-Nissar Ahmed made a disclosure statement about the weapon of offence. The call details of Phone Numbers of accused Nos.1 and 6, Saleem Khan and Barkat Hussain were taken. Accordingly, offences under Sections 302/120-B/201/195-A RPC were established.

5. The Court below after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and PP for the State came to the conclusion that offence under Section 302 has been found proved against Saleem Khan, Sher Khan, Zamarud Khan and Nissar Ahmed, whereas the rest of the accused, i.e., Abdul Rashid, Barkat Hussain and Tilak Raj were not found involved in the case, so they were discharged, accordingly.

6. I have carefully gone through the grounds taken in the memo of the revision petition.

7. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it may be noted that sections 268 and 269 of Cr.P.C relate to the trial of cases before the Courts of Sessions. It is to be seen whether prima facie case has been made out for framing charge or not. It is apt to quote section 268