The Court determined that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion based on available evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial.

1. In this criminal revision, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28-1-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Agartala, in S.T. No. 141 of 2012, framing the charges against the petitioner u/S. 302/201/34, IPC, by rejecting his prayer for discharge.

2. The facts giving rise to this criminal revision are that Bishalgrah P.S. Case No. 151/2012, u/S. 304 - A / 201 of IPC and S.135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003, was registered against, among others, the petitioner on the basis of the FIR dated 29-10-2011 lodged by the respondent No. 2. The allegation of the respondent No. 2 is that on 28-10-2011, she along with her husband (the deceased) had gone to orchestra event in their own locality, but she returned home leaving her husband behind and that on the following morning at 6.30 a.m., she found her husband lying dead with electric burn injuries on his leg, at the backyard of the house of the co - accused Suman Bhowmik. After investigation of the case, the police submitted the charge - sheet against the petitioner, co - accused Suman Bhowmik and his wife, Rakhi Bhowmik u/S. 302/201/34, IPC. On commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura transferred the case to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Agartala, who by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from the case and proceeded to frame the charges against him u/S. 302/201/34, IPC.

3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the framing of the charge by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the extra - judicial confession and last seen together was based on misconception of fact and of law inasmuch as the so - called confession was recorded by the police while he was in police custody, which is clearly inadmissible in law. Contending that there is absolutely no prima facie case to go for trial, the learned senior counsel strenuously urges this Court to set aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner from the case. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the question to be determined in this case is not whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner as evidence are yet to be adduced, but whether there are sufficient materials to raise strong suspicion against him. So judged, submits the learned State counsel, there are, based on last seen theory, adequate materials to raise strong suspicion against the petitioner. He, therefore, maintains that there is no merit in this revision petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

4. The provision for discharge of an accused is found at S.227, Cr.P.C, which reads thus:
'227. Discharge. - 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 not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.'

5. In exercise of the power conferred under S.227, Cr.P.C, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The scope of this salutary provision came up for consideration before the Apex Court recently in State of T.N. v. Suresh Rajan , 2014 (11) SCC 709 : 2014 AIR SCW 941, paras 20 & 21. After making comparative study of S.227, S.239 and S.245, Cr.P.C, the Apex Court held:

'29. We have bestowed our consideration to the r