At the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learend Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sitapur in ST No.570 of 2014 Sate vs. Rakesh Kumar Hansh arising out of case crime no.212 of 2013 under section 498-A, 304 B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, relating to P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel for the petitioner was called to mark the admission /denial on the documents upon which the endorsement was made. An oral prayer was also made to discharge the accused, upon which the learned court below after considering the evidence on record and coming to the conclusion that the deceased died unnatural death at the house of her husband and there were clear allegations of demand of Alto Car in the dowry and causing cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It was directed that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner to frame charge under section 498-A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

5. For the purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record, if unrebutted, in such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonably doubt is not to be seen. At this stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At the time of framing of the charge, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him.

6. In Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 1963 , it has been held that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face the trial.

7. In Yogesh Josi vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 2991 , Hon'ble the Apex Court, interpreting the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" has held that it postulates exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma vs. C.B.I. AIR 2000 SC 2335 , has held that at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and than proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Panjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bizza AIR 1990 SC 1962 has held that the Court may for limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even it that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

10. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal AIR 2000 SC 522 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons.

11. In State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Chakkar AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in R