KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the State against the order dated 23-6-1986 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S. C. 30 of 1984 discharging the accused persons under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the deceased Krishna and Sunder committed theft of Rs. 15. 000/- belonging to accused-1. There was a quarrel between accused on the one hand and the deceased Krishna and Sunder on the other. A panchayat was convened, which was attended by a-1 and his friends. In the course of that panchayat, deceased Krishna and Sunder are said to have protested against the holding of the panchayat and were insisting that it was a matter which can be investigated by the police. Thus that panchayat failed. The deceased Krishna and Sunder left the panchayat and A-1 was saying at that time that he knew how to recover the money and that he would teach a lesson to them. So saying he went away along with his companions in a jeep. ( 3 ) ON 26-11-1980 the deceased Krishna and Sunder were going to the land of Shamanna along with C. W. 25 Shankar, C. W. 39 Lakshmaiah, C. W. 40 Ganesh and C. W. 41 Perumalu in the morning from their village. Krishna and Sunder along with those four persons had lunch in the said land in the afternoon and left the land in order to go to the village. ( 4 ) A-2, A-3 and A-5 and others, on 26-11 -1980 are said to have caught hold of deceased krishna, assaulted him and dragged him towards the jeep parked on the road and took him away in the jeep. Thereafter the dead body of Krishna was found on 30-1-1980. On a complaint being lodged, the police registered the case for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 364, 302 and 201 IPC. The police after conducting the inquest subjected the dead body for post-mortem examination. After recording the statements of various persons and drawing up various mahazars, the police laid a charge-sheet against accused 1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 364, 302 and 201 IPC. ( 5 ) THE Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After recording the statements of various persons and drawing up various mahazars, the police laid a charge-sheet against accused 1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 364, 302 and 201 IPC. ( 5 ) THE Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecutor and the defence Counsel, discharged the accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the revision. ( 6 ) THE police statement of Muniyappa - C. W. 6, the father of the deceased Krishna, is to the effect that some 15 to 20 days prior to the finding of the dead body, he and others had assembled at the panchayat held in Sri Dharmaraya Temple situated in their colony; that some 70 to 80 persons including himself and his son Krishna had also attended that panchayat; that A-1, who is residing in Kattigenahalli, and his companions had come to that panchayat in a jeep; that bodappa - C. W. 22, Gopal - C. W. 35, Muniyappa - C. W. 34, Rangaswamy - C. W. 33 and others had attended that panchayat on behalf of A-1 ; that A-1 submitted in that panchayat that some four or five days before that, he and others had gone on tour and Sunder had also accompanied them; that when they returned from the tour, a suit-case containing Rs. 15,000/-was found stolen by Sunder and that Sunder was thereafter absconding ; that A-1 told the panchayatdars to make sunder return the money; that Sunder told in that panchayat that he had not stolen the money and that panchayat cannot be held in a temple regarding a theft case; that at that time Krishna told that if Sunder had committed theft, the police should be informed about it; that the deceased krishna further stated as to whether a panchayat should be held after bribing Gowdappa ; that krishna was very much enraged and there were exchange of words between the deceased krishna and Sunder on the one hand and the other panchayatdars and A-1 and his companions; that A-1 at that time stated in anger that he knew how he could take away Krishna and Sunder and recover money from them; that A-1 said at that time that he would teach Krishna and Sunder a lesson and went away in a jeep; that thereafter Krishna and Sunder were moving together in the village; that on 26-11-1980 the deceased Krishna saying that he would take the labourers to the village of his brother-in-law, left the house along with Sunder; that on the same day Shankar C. W. 25 came to his house and enquired as to whether Krishna had not returned home ; that he had told him that Krishna had not returned ; that C. W. 25 told him that Krishna and Sunder had left the place Sheetyhalli after lunch saying that they would go back to the house. According to him, C. W. 25 stated that the people were talking that A-1 and his four or five companions had come in a jeep and put them in the jeep and had taken them away. He stated that on so learning from C. W. 25, he sent his son C. W. 19 Venkatesh to his son-in-law Shamanna to enquire about his son Krishna. According to him, Venkatesh went to Shamanna's house and returned on the next day with Shamanna and Shamanna said that Krishna and Sunder left the village after taking lunch in the afternoon. According to him, his son-in-law told him that people near Bekal railway station were talking that A-1 had come in a jeep near the railway station, beaten two persons of mallur and put them in a jeep and had taken away. According to him, his son-in-law told him that people near Bekal railway station were talking that A-1 had come in a jeep near the railway station, beaten two persons of mallur and put them in a jeep and had taken away. ( 7 ) THE statement of Muniyappa son of Chinnappa recorded in the course of the inquest is to the same effect. The statement of C. W. 8 Sandappa recorded at the time of inquest is in the same terms. The statement of C. W. 18 - Nanjappa, who is the brother-in-law of Sunder, which is recorded at the time of inquest, refers to the said panchayat, refers to A-1 and his companions attending the said panchayat and refers to A-1 eventually holding out threats to Sunder and krishna at the time of the panchayat. His statement further indicates that some four or 5 days prior to the holding of the above said panchayat A-1 and his 4 or 5 companions had come to his younger sisters husband's namely Sander's house and enquired as to whether Sunder was in his house and searched for Sunder and then went away. C. W. 9, who is the brother of the deceased has spoken about the panchayat and about A-1 and his companions attending that panchayat and also about A-1 and his companions holding out threat to Krishna and Sunder. ( 8 ) THE statement of C. W. 19 - Venkatesh States about A-1 coming to his house four or five days prior to the above panchayat and attempting to find out Sunder. His statement further indicates that Sunder and Krishna had gone with some four labourers to Shettihalli and they did not return at all. His statement further shows that on the morning of Thursday, Muniyappa had sent him to the house of Shamanna to find out Sunder and Krishna and learnt from Shamanna that Sunder and Krishna had left the house previous day stating that they would go to their house. ( 9 ) C. W. 22 - Bodappa has stated before the police that some 17 or 18 days prior to 2-12-1980, a-1 and his friends namely Krishnamurthy, driver Rizwan, A. 2 Basha, A-7 Pachu, A-3 Vazeer, a-5 Teju and A-4 Wajeed came in a green coloured jeep to Mallur and met him and then A-1 asked him as to where the house of Sunder was. He claims to have asked A-1 as to why he wanted to know the house of Sunder. According to him, A-1 told him that 4 or 5 days back when a-1 had gone on tour along with Sunder, Sunder had stolen his suitcase containing Rs. 15,000/-and that he wanted to get the money back from him and further asked him to come to the house of Sunder. According to him, he took him to the house of Sundar along with other persons, who had come with A-1 in the jeep. According to him, Sunder's wife was in the house and the father-in-law of Sunder came near the house. A-1 asked both of them as to where Sunder was. According to him, both of them told that Sunder was not in the house. Thereafter A-1 and his two to three friends went inside the house and searched for Sunder and could not find him. According to him, A-1 said at that time that Sundar had stolen the suitcase containing Rs. 15,000/- and he did not return and he knew how to recover the same. According to him, A-1 asked C. W. 2 to have his money returned in a panchayat. The statement of C. W. 2 speaks about the holding of the panchayat, about A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-7 and A-4 and Krishnamurthy attending that panchayat and about A-1 holding out the threats. ( 10 ) THE police statement of C. W. 23 - Muniyappa refers to the said panchayat and about A-1, a-2, A-3 and the driver Rizwan and others coming in jeep and attending that panchayat, and A-1 holding out the threats. The statement of C. W. 24 - Perumalappa is to the same effect. ( 11 ) THE police statement of C. W. 25 - Shankar shows that on 26-11-1980 the deceased Krishna called him, C. W. 41 Perumal, C. W. 39 Lakshmaiah @ Buddahatti and C. W. 40 Ganesh to come for cooli work to his brother-in-law's house situated at Shettihall. According to him, it was agreed that they would be paid Rs. 8/- per day as wages plus food. According to him, it was agreed that they would be paid Rs. 8/- per day as wages plus food. According to him, all of them, krishna and Sunder left the village at about 6 a. m. and reached the house of Shamanna, brother-in-law of Krishna, at about 8-30 a. m. Thereafter they went to the garden land situated by the side of Shettihalli and started working there. According to him Krishna told Shamanna that all the four persons would work in his garden for two days, and thereafter Shamanna went towards his house. Thereafter all of them worked in the garden till afternoon. At about 2 p. m. Shamanna brought the meals to the said garden land and all of them had their food. Thereafter at about 3 p. m. Krishna saying that he had to put water in the garden in his village, left for his village along with Sunder. According to him he and other labourers worked in the garden till 6 p. m. Thereafter they took Rs. 5/- from Shamanna saying that they would go to Bekal to see a film there. Thereafter, he and other labourers reached Bekal at about 6 p. m. According to them, they went to the hotel of Chandrasekhara Shetty to have coffee and in that hotel Chandrasekhara shetty told them that on that day at about 3 or 3-30 p. m. , A-1, driver Rizwan, Krishnamurthy, a-3 and A-4 and other two friends of A-1 had come in a jeep and that A-1 saying that 2 persons of Mallur who had stolen money had come and that they would be caught and landed over to the police, beat them and put them in the jeep and took them away. Thereafter C. W. 25 went to mallur to the houses of Krishna and Sunder and enquired as to whether Krishna and Sunder and had returned home and he learnt that they had not returned at all. ( 12 ) THE police statements of C. W. 39 Lakshmaiah, C. W. 40 Ganesh and C. W. 41 Perumal are to the similar effect. ( 13 ) THE statement of C. W. 27 - Venkateshappa is to the effect that some 8 days prior to 2-12-1980, he saw a person from Mallur namely Shamanna's brother-in-law running from the side of Bekal railway station. ( 13 ) THE statement of C. W. 27 - Venkateshappa is to the effect that some 8 days prior to 2-12-1980, he saw a person from Mallur namely Shamanna's brother-in-law running from the side of Bekal railway station. According to him,at that time A-2, A-3, A-5, Krishnamurthy and three others were chasing that person. At that time C. W. 30 Srinivasamurthy had come there to cut grass and C. W. 38 Kempanna had come there to graze sheep. According to him, the said six persons caught the person from Mallur, beat him and dragged him towards the jeep parked on the road. According to him, C. W. 38 asked those persons as to why they had caught hold of the said person for which they threatened him and said that they would drag him also. Thereafter they put the said person of Mallur in the jeep and took him away. ( 14 ) THE police statements of C. W. 29 Erappa, C. W. 30 Srinivasamurthy and C. W. 38 - Kempanna are also to the same effect as that of C. W. 27. The police statement of C. W. 31 Venkatagirisetty speaks about one person being caught hold of by A-1 and others, about being brought to the jeep and about they taking him away. The statement of Chandrasekharasetty - C. W. 32 is also to the same effect. ( 15 ) THE police statement of C. W. 33 Rangaswamy refers to the panchayat held, about A -1 holding out threat to Sunder and Krishna at that time. The statements of C. W. 35 Gopal, C. W. 36 chinnaswamy and C. W. 37 Narayanappa also refer to the panchayat and about A -1 holding out threats. ( 16 ) THE Sessions Judge, on taking into consideration the said circumstancial evidence and going through the statements of witnesses made before the police, has formulated seven pieces of circumstances, which according to the prosecution,connect the accused persons with the offence of kidnapping and murder of said Krishna. They are - i) Convening of the panchayat for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 15,000/- from Krishna, which, according to A-1, had been stolen away by Krishna and Sunder while they had gone out on tour. They are - i) Convening of the panchayat for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 15,000/- from Krishna, which, according to A-1, had been stolen away by Krishna and Sunder while they had gone out on tour. ii) Sunder was saying in the said panchayat that he had not stolen the money and that Krishna was enraged and was saying that the panchayat should not be held in the temple regarding a theft case and that if Sunder had committed the theft the police should be informed and there after there was exchange of words between Krishna and Sunder and the persons that had come to hold the panchayat on the one hand and A-1 and others on the other. iii) A-1 was saying at the said panchayat angrily that he knew how to take away Krishna and sunder and to recover the money from them. A-1 was also saying that he would teach a lesson to sunder and Krishna and so saying he went away along with his companions in a jeep in an enraged mood. iv) Krishna and Sunder along with Shankar - C. W. 25, Lakshmaiah - C. W. 39, Ganesh - C. W. 40 and Perumal C. W. 41 went to the land of Krishna's brother-in-law Shamanna on 26-11-1980 in the morning for doing cooli work. Krishna and Sunder and the said four coolies had lunch in the land in the afternoon and thereafter Sunder and Krishna left that land in order to go to their village and they did not reach their house thereafter. v) A-2, A-3, A-5 and others, on 26-11 -1980, chased the deceased Krishna. e. , the brother-in-law of Shamanna and caught hold of him and beat him and dragged him toward the jeep parked on the road and took him away in the jeep. (Vide statements of C. Ws. 27, 29, 30 and 38 ). vi) A-1 and A-2 and others caught hold of another person of Mallur, who was along with krishna, and bet him also and dragged him and made him to sit in the jeep and Krishna was also made to sit in that jeep and they took them away. (Vide statements of C. Ws. 27, 29, 30 and 38 ). vi) A-1 and A-2 and others caught hold of another person of Mallur, who was along with krishna, and bet him also and dragged him and made him to sit in the jeep and Krishna was also made to sit in that jeep and they took them away. vii)The complainant Muniyappa found the dead body in a well on 30-11-1980 at about 9 a. m. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the said circumstances are more than sufficient to create a grave suspicion in the mind of the Court about the complicity of the accused in regard to the offence of kidnapping Krishna and murdering him. The learned Counsel Sri Koti submitted that the trial Court had proceeded to consider the said circumstancial evidence as though it was deciding the case finally once for all. He made a grievance that the approach made by the trial court in order to find out whether the said circumstancial evidence was ultimately and finally sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, was absolutely erroneous so far as regards the framing of the charge was concerned. It is no doubt unfortunate that the trial Court has formulated the point as to whether the said circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the ; guilt of the accused. That ought not to have been the approach of the Sessions Judge, while framing the charges. ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. L. MUNISWAMY AND ORS. , AIR1977 SC 1489 , 1977 Crilj1125 , 1977 (2 )Karlj483 , (1977 )2 scc699 , [1977 ]3 SCR113 has stated as - "it is clear from Section 227 of the new Code that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record its reasons is to enable the superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record its reasons is to enable the superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. In the exercise of the wholesome power under Section 482 the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed " in para 10, the Supreme Court has held, as - "for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. " ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court has further stated in UNION OF INDIA v. PRAFULLA KUMAR samal AND ANR, AIR1979 SC 366 , 1979 Crilj154 , (1979 )3 scc4 , [1979 ]2 SCR229 as " the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. 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. " ( 20 ) THE Supreme Court again in SUPERINTENDENTS REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL affairs, WEST BENGAL v. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND ORS. , AIR 1980 SC 32 has laid down as "at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. , AIR 1980 SC 32 has laid down as "at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. The standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228. At this stage even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. ( 21 ) THEREFORE Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the principles laid down in the said three Supreme Court cases, requite that if the material collected by the Investigating Agency create a very grave strong and serious suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, then the Court has to frame a charge and that if the materials collected by the Investigating agency are not sufficient to create any strong suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, then the Court may discharge the accused persons. ( 22 ) THE police statements of C. Ws. 25, 39, 40 and 41 are to the effect that Sunder and Krishna, after taking food went away from the land of Shamanna. The police statements of C. Ws. 27, 29, 30 and 38 are to the effect that they, at about 3-45 or 4 p. m. on 26-11-1980, saw Krishna being chased away and caught by A-2, A-3, A-5 Krishnamurthy and three others of Kattigenahall. C. W. 27 speaks about A-2, A-3, A-5, Krishnamurthy and three others chasing and catching hold of Shamanna's brother-in-law Krishna. C. W. 29 speaks about six persons looking like Muslims chasing a person of Mallur and catching hold of him and dragging him to the jeep and taking him away in the jeep. C. W. 30 speaks about A-2, A-3, A-5 and 2 others chasing Shamanna's brother-in-law and catching hold of two persons and taking them away in a jeep. C. W. 29 speaks about six persons looking like Muslims chasing a person of Mallur and catching hold of him and dragging him to the jeep and taking him away in the jeep. C. W. 30 speaks about A-2, A-3, A-5 and 2 others chasing Shamanna's brother-in-law and catching hold of two persons and taking them away in a jeep. C. W. 38 speaks about A-2, A-3, Krishnamurthy and three others chasing Shamanna's brother-in-law, catching him, dragging him to the jeep. At the most the statements of C. Ws. 27, 30 and 38 should be taken to mean that they last saw Shamanna's brother-in-law before the dead body of Krishna was found on 30th. C. W. 29 only speaks of his seeing a person of Mallur being caught by six persons, who looked like Muslims, and he does not state who that person of Mallur was and who those six persons were. Thus, the statements of these witnesses might go to indicate at the most that the deceased Krishna was last seen by them on 26th and thereafter Krishna was not seen and heard of at all. Their statements also might be taken to mean that he was put in a jeep and taken away. But this circumstance by itself is not sufficient even to create a suspicion that the deceased krishna was taken away by them with intent to murder and it is they that did a way with Krishna. The circumstance that the accused were last seen with Krishna, is not by itself sufficient even to create a suspicion in the mind of the Court that it is these persons only that might have done the deceased to death. ( 23 ) THE post-mortem report and the F. S. L. report do not disclose the cause of death at all. The post-mortem report and the other materials on record go to show that the dead body was found in a highly decomposed state and practically it was not in a fit condition to be identified at all. The dead body had no clothes at all. When the dead body was in a decomposed state and it had no clothes on it, it is difficult even to suspect that the dead body might be that of Krishna. The dead body had no clothes at all. When the dead body was in a decomposed state and it had no clothes on it, it is difficult even to suspect that the dead body might be that of Krishna. The identity by the father of the deceased Krishna in that connection is not sufficient even to create a suspicion in the mind of the Court that the dead body might be that of Krishna. ( 24 ) SRI Koti, the learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that the post-mortem report indicated that the doctor had found a lacerated wound on the dead body. Whether that lacerated wound was anti-mortem or post-mortem one, cannot be made out from that report. It cannot be said that the said injury was sufficient to bring about the death of the person. ( 25 ) ACCORDING to Sri Koti, the evidence of the said four persons. e. , C. Ws. 25, 39, 40 and 41 is to the effect that they saw Shamanna's brother-in-law being chased, assaulted and taken away by the accused in a jeep. The evidence of the said four persons is highly suspicious, unnatural and artificial and thus in any event it is impossible to place any reliance on their testimony. ( 26 ) THE said seven circumstances formulated by the Sessions Judge would not be sufficient to create a suspicion much less serious or strong in the mind of the Court that the accused had got any hand in kidnapping Krishna or in murdering him. Hence, the order of discharge passed by the Sessions Judge does not need any interference. ( 27 ) THEREFORE, the revision is dismissed.