1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1087 of 2009 ============================================= 1. Santosh Sao 2. Guddu Sao (Both are resident of village-Govindpur, P.S.-Fatuha, District- Patna) .... .... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opp.Party ============================================= 2 13-07-2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,XI, Patna in S.T.No.1564/08 by which the petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge has been rejected. Heard Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. No one has seen to commit the murder of the victim Raju @ Tipu. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that the witnesses have supported the commission of the offence and he is still traceless. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the prosecution evidence as mentioned in the 2 case diary. He has referred several paragraphs to show that there are chain of circumstances to show the complicity of the accused petitioners in the alleged occurrence. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the charge under Section 364/34 has already been framed against them. It is settled law that for the consideration of the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the learned court is not required to see as to whether the prosecution evidence will lead to the conviction of the accused. At the beginning of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The court is required only to see if there is a strong suspicion against the accused giving rise to presumption of his guilt. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision in the case of Rana Ramdev and others Vs.State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) 3