At the discharge stage, the court must determine if prima facie evidence exists to frame charges, assuming the prosecution's material is true without conducting a detailed inquiry.

ORDER :

K.Murali Shankar, J.

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.277 of 2019 in S.C.No.77 of 2018 dated 04.11.2024 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Elango, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.409 of 2016 on 15.09.2016 against Mickelraj, Sridharan/petitioner herein and four other persons for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 109 IPC on the file of the respondent police and after completing the investigation, the respondent police has laid the final report against six persons including the petitioner (accused 4 and 5 being juveniles, charge sheet against them was laid before the Juvenile Justice Board) for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 149 IPC and the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and after committal, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.77 of 2018 and the same was made over and is pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar. 

3. When the sessions case was pending for framing of charges, the sixth accused filed the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the above case. The respondent police has filed a counter raising objections. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 dismissing the discharge petition. Challenging the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

4. The case of the prosecution is that there existed previous enmity between the petitioner/sixth accused and the defacto complainant, that the petitioner, due to that enmity, directed the other accused to kill the defacto complainant and in pursuance of the same, the accused 1 to 5 formed unlawful assembly with deadly weapons on 15.09.2016 and attacked the defacto complainant indiscriminately and that thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 149 IPC.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent police seized two knives as well as other articles from the accused 1 to 5, that there is no specific overt act alleged as against the petitioner, that the petitioner has not at all involved with the alleged crime but falsely implicated, that the petitioner is not a part of unlawful assembly and as such, the offences under Sections 147, 307 r/w 149 IPC cannot be made out against the petitioner, that there are absolutely no sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, that the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation with regard to the alleged previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, that they have not recovered the anonymous petition sent by the defacto complainant nor collected any other particulars with regard to the same, that the investigating officer has obtained confession statement from the first accused Mickel @ Mickelraj and he has nowhere stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the entire crime, that the witnesses have also not stated anything specifically about the petitioner in their statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and that in the absence of any materials to proceed against the petitioner, he is entitled to be discharged from the above case.

6. The respondent police has filed a counter statement before the trial Court raising objections and further stated that the defacto complainant in his complaint has specifically stated that there existed previous enmity between him and the petitioner and having that enmity in mind, the petitioner only set up the other accused to commit murderous attack, that the witnesses have specifically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, that the prosecution, after examining 18 witnesses, has rightly laid the charge sheet against six persons in