At the discharge stage under Cr.P.C. Section 239, the court must consider if there is sufficient prima facie evidence for charges rather than delve into the probative value of evidence.

O R D E R

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026

The Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.5403 of 2025 in S.C.No.725/2011. The petitioner is accused No.11. He faces charges under Sections 120 (b), 143, 147, 148 341, 323, 324, 326, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case as narrated in the impugned order is as follows:

“The accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of the common object of the assembly and after a criminal conspiracy hatched, which resulted in voluntarily causing hurt, grievous hurt and death to the respective deceased Maneesh as well as his friends and therefore the offences.”

3. The petitioner filed an application seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioner and the other accused.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that materials are insufficient to maintain the prosecution case against the petitioner based on the theory of conspiracy. The learned counsel further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he surrendered a mobile phone and a broken SIM card to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pavaratty Police Station, who prepared the mahazar.

6. The learned counsel submitted that accused No.12 with whom the petitioner allegedly conspired to commit the offences, has been discharged.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the prosecution has placed sufficient materials to implicate the petitioner based on the theory of conspiracy. He further submitted that there are sufficient materials to connect the petitioner with the offences alleged, and to establish his participation in the conspiracy. The prosecution materials show that accused No.1 obtained a mobile connection with No.9526541731 from CW36 and caused accused No.11 to contact Maneesh, the victim.

8. According to the prosecution, the petitioner / accused No.11, following the instructions of accused No.1, deliberately called Maneesh over the mobile phone and pretended to be in love with him. On 07.03.2010, she asked the victim-Maneesh, to come to Cherupadam near Elavallypara padam centre. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.11 invited Sri.Maneesh to there based on a sketch prepared by accused No.1 with the help of accused No.12.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since accused No.12 has been discharged, the charges against accused No.11 with the aid of conspiracy will not sustain.

10. Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with discharge and framing of charge.

11. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.

12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of the materials on record is not to be gone into at this stage.

13. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [ (2008) 2 SCC 561 ] while considering the nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of charge held thus:-

“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to