IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14051 of 2011 Chandrachur Mahto & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2/ 17/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. It happens to be a petition filed by the petitioners- accused on being refused of their prayer to be discharged purported to be under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Informant, Mantu Mahto detailed the manner of occurrence in his Fardbeyan and shown his status as an eyewitness to occurrence but in due course of time soften towards the accused-petitioners who are none else than his cousin brothers and other family members and in the aforesaid background, as is evident from Annexure-2 series, the informant along with other witnesses were examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they have disowned to have identify the accused during course of occurrence. That happens to be the basis of prayer for discharge which has been rejected by the learned lower court and the same has been challenged. At the present moment, in a decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3723 the following criteria have been laid 2 down by Hon’ble Apex Court to deal with the same situation covering under Section 227, 228 of the Cr.P.C. is to be taken into account. For better appreciation, the same is incorporated hereinbelow:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction, the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material documents on record with a view to find out if the facts 3 emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Thus, taking into account the allegation on its face coupled with submission so made on behalf of the petitioner none of the criterion is being found to be fulfilled entitling the petitioners to claim discharge and accordingly, prayer is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)