ORDER

Heard Smt Bhatmal Shirin Shabbisbhai, appearing on behalf of Sri Mento Issac, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.

2. Revision petition is filed by accused No.4 in S.C.No.1309/2017, challenging the order of rejecting to discharge accused No.4 from the sessions case.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

Upon the complaint lodged by Sri Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Nagaraj, Bayyappanahalli police have registered a case in Cr.No.358 of 2016 on 26.12.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 IPC.

4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the brother of complainant by name Girish was found dead in the intervening night of 25/26.12.2016, near the walking path of Byrasandra Tank. The injuries found on the dead body show that the injuries could have been caused with the sharp edged weapons.

5. On the basis of suspicion, a complaint came to be lodged against Tejas and his friends. Police after registering the case, conducted thorough investigation. During the course of the investigation, based on the voluntary statement given by the other accused persons, present accused No.4 was apprehended by the police and his voluntary statement was also recorded.\

6. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused, seized the vehicle said to have been used in the incident and a mobile phone possessed by the accused, wherein conversation between present petitioner and the other accused persons were appearing. Therefore, the Investigating Agency has arraigned accused No.4 in the case and charge sheet came to be filed.

7. After accused No.4 appeared before the Trial Court, he filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The State objected for the said application.

8. Learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and considered the case that is advanced on behalf of the present petitioner and the written objections lodged on behalf of the prosecution. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the order passed in S.C.No.1309/2017 is culled out hereunder for ready reference.

“10. On perusal of the prosecution papers and statement of witnesses, it is noticed that, CW.1 to CW.4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They stated before the police that, the accused persons came to the spot in the vehicle and quarreled with the deceased and CW.1 to CW.4. In the meantime, one of the accused assaulted the deceased Girish with knife and stone. Thereby, he had sustained factal injuries on the vital part of his body. The eye witnesses have shifted the injured to the hospital. Again they have shifted to Manipal hospital. The doctor declared that Girish is dead. The I.O registered the case and conducted the investigation, recovered the material objects by conducting panchanama and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. Some of the material objects reveals that, the petitioner and others are involved in the commission of the offence. Moreover, the I.O has recovered the mobile phone from the possession of accused No.4. There is conversation between the accused No.4 and other accused persons regarding the incident. Thereby, at this stage it is not possible to hold that the accused No.4 is not involved in the commission of the offence. It is no doubt, the eye witnesses and complainant are not disclosed the name of the accused No.4 in the complaint and statement. During the course of investigation the I.O has found out that the present accused No.4 and other are involved in the commission of the offence and thereby, accused No.4 is arrested and I.O has recovered the material objects, mobile phone, vehicle etc., These materials are sufficient to proceed with the case.

11. At this juncture, based on the contention of the accused No.4 and citations relied by accused No.4 it is not possible to hold that there are no materials against the accused No.4. It is no doubt, at the time of discussing the application