S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. The State has filed his revision against an order of discharge passed by Sessions Court.

2. The non-applicant Rikhiram Patel was at the material time Lecturer in a High School in village Dhamda of district Durg in Madhya Pradesh. He was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offence of murdering his wife Kamlabai. The Sessions Court, however, "upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with", as contemplated by Section 227 Cr. P.c. 1973, thought that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the non-applicant. Accordingly, the Sessions Court by order dated 6.7.1984, discharged the non-applicant of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., Aggrieved by that order, the State has filed this revision.

3. At the stage of Sections 227/228 Cr. P.C. 1973, the Sessions Judge has to find out, if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce, even if unrebutted, would show that the accused committed the offence or not. If not, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused should be discharged. The truth, varacity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at that stage. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. See State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018. That is not to say that the Sessions Judge is to merely act as a post-office to frame a charge at the behest of the prosecution. He has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case, in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Sessions Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. See Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC 366 and the latest decision Niranjan Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj AIR 1990 SC 1962.

4. It appears that the prosecution case in the case in hand was to rest on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which the prosecution relied was that on the night intervening 23rd and 24th February, 1984, the non-applicant and his wife Kamlabai had slept in the same house, i.e. in the house of the non-applicant, and on the following morning, Kamlabai was found to be missing from the house. The force of this circumstance is considerably eroded by the fact that it is the prosecution case itself that one Vimlabai, a girl aged about 12 years, who is niece of the non-applicant, also lived in that house. She had slept with deceased Kamlahai in a room of the house while the non-applicant had slept in another room on the material night. It is in the police statement of Vimlahai that she noticed nothing on that night. She woke up on the following morning only to find that her aunt Kamlahai was missing. She woke up her maternal uncle i.e. the non-applicant to tell him that aunt was missing.

5. The next circumstance, on which the prosecution wanted to rely was that dead body of Kamlabai was found in a well in close proximity to the house of the non-applicant. The dead body was found when it started to float in the well on the morning of 26th February 1984 i.e. on the 3rd day when Kamlabai was first found to be missing. A reference to the spot map, which was part of the record, would show that the well is just adjacent to Municipal Office Dhamda. On the other hand, it is about 10 metres away from the house of the non-applicant. In that way, the well was nearer to the Municipal Office than to the house of the non-applicant. It appears in the police statement of Vimlabai that continuously on 24th, 25th 26th February, 1984, in the morning time, she had gone to fetch water from the well in question. She could not see the body of the deceased on any of tho