IMPORTANT POINT
The sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused, especially in cases of grave and sudden provocation, is determined by evaluating the prosecution materials and not considering the accused's defense at the discharge stage.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) by the accused in S.C.No.1275/2023 pending before the First Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. He assails the order in Crl.M.P.No.949/2024 dated 29.05.2024 in the said case, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed an application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution in detail. Perused the impugned order, the records placed by the learned counsel for the accused and the case diary as a whole, placed by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused who got absolved in a peculiar mental condition due to excess consumption of alcohol, called the police control room of Pooyappally Police Station at 3.45 a.m on 10.05.2023. In response to this call, witnesses Nos.3, 10 and 11 reached the house of witness No.13 and found injuries on the body of the accused and decided to give him medical aid. Since the accused hesitated to enter into the jeep, the second witness pressurised him to enter into the jeep and the accused carried a stick during this time. Witness No.2 forcefully removed the same and thereafter the accused was taken to Taluk Hospital, Kottarakkara, at 4.40 a.m along with witnesses Nos.12 and 2. Witness No.1 examined the accused and taken him to the procedure room at casuality waiting area. Then the accused kicked on the chest of witness No.12 stating that he was not given the required priority. Later, the accused videographed the events while he was given medical aid by witness No.1 and Dr.Vandana Das, and shared the same through WhatsApp. Later, witness No.9 dressed his wound. At this juncture, the accused tactically took a surgical scissors from the said room and kept the same hidden in his right hand. Then he stabbed on the neck of witness No.2 and caused injury to him with intention to do away witness No.2. Since witness No.3 interfered, fatality to witness No.2 was avoided. Infuriated by the same, the accused caused stab injury to witness No.3 and when witness No.2 attempted to save witness No.3, the accused caused stab injury on the chest of witness No.2. When witness No.3 tried to escape, the accused followed him through the waiting area of the casuality and caused repeated stab injuries. When witness No.5 attempted to rescue himself, the accused caused stab injury on the left hand muscle portion of witness No.5. When witness No.11 attempted to save witness No.5, the accused attempted to stab witness No.11. Later witnesses Nos.11 and 12 strongly resisted the accused and thereby witness No.5 was saved from fatality. Then he attacked witness No.4, who was on aid post duty at the hospital, near the O.P counter and caused stab injuries on his head. Since the accused created a horrible scene by attacking all, the injured persons and other staff saved themselves in their respective rooms. At this juncture, Dr.Vandana Das reached at the observation room after informing the same to witness No.49. Then the accused, with intention to cause death of Dr.Vandana Das, wrongly restrained her and stabbed her repeatedly to ensure her death. Though medical aid was given to Dr.Vandana Das, she died at 8.25 p.m. There is allegation that the accused obstructed the official duties of the hospital staff and threatened them. Causing disappearance of evidence is the other allegation against the accused. On this substratum, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 332, 333, 353, 506(ii), 307, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter).

4. While assailing the order impugned whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused the relief seeking discharge, the learned counsel for the accused fervently argued that as discernible from the prosecution re