IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH (18TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.243 of 2011 Between: Durvas Rajendra Singh & others … Petitioners And: The State A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.243 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 03.12.2010 in Crl.M.P No.367 of 2010 in SC No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-A.1 to A.4 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein-A.1 to A.4 are accused of offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. On a complaint given by one Gunti Padmarao, brother of the deceased, police registered FIR No.90 of 2008 and after due investigation, filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance and later committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as SC No.21 of 2009. According to the prosecution, on 12.04.2008 at about 12 noon, there was a panchayat in the village in the presence of the Sarpanch and others over a land dispute between the accused and the deceased and during the said panchayat, the deceased produced certain documents in support of his claim and the accused alleging that they are vague, restrained the deceased, the complainant and others and when the deceased tried to raise hand, the accused pushed him by neck and the deceased hit against a wall and collapsed and when he was taken to hospital at Medchal, the doctor pronounced him dead. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 would mainly contend that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is due to heart attack and there are no external injuries and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC are not attracted. As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, at this stage while framing charges, the court has to only see whether there is any prima-facie material against the accused and is not supposed to dwell deep in to the evidentiary aspects of the matter. The decision in the case would not solely depend upon the post-mortem certificate. The post- mortem certificate is only a piece of evidence and the trial Court would have to consider the same along with other evidence available on record to decide whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are established or not. Some times, even if the alleged offence is not made out, the evidence on record may establish the ingredients of a lesser offence against the accused. Whether or not any such lesser offence is proved against the accused is again a matter to be considered on evidence. At this threshold stage on the eve of framing the charges, the trial Court is not expected to assess the relative merits of the case or appreciate the probative value of the documents. The specific allegations made against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 is that they caught hold of the neck of the deceased and pushed him and he hit against a wall resulting in almost an instantaneous death. The names of the eye witnesses to the occurrence, which is alleged to have taken place in public during the course of panchayat, are also mentioned in the FIR and their statements are recorded during the course of investigation. It is therefore a matter which requires a full-fledged trial to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the aspects of the knowledge and intention or lack of them while committing the alleged offences are also to be considered during the course of trial only but not at this stage. 5. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations are made against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 and specific overt acts are attributed to them and having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offence alleged, it is considered not a fit case where the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 can be discharged. The impugned order dismissing their application seeking discharge, does not therefore call for any interference. 6. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 18.07.2011 bss