JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:---The Criminal revision application is directed against the order below Exh. 13, dated 10-9-1991 passed in sessions trial No. 482/88 by Shri B.N. Jagtap, Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejecting the application of the applicants/accused under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the applicants/accused are as follows : For the homicidal death of Ku. Anita which occurred on 29-6-1985, the applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 202 and 12-B of I.P.C. The applicant Nos. 1 and 3, Shri Gulabchand Chandak and Shri Narayandas Chandak are the real brothers. The applicant No. 4 Gayatribai Chandak is the wife of the applicant No. 1 Gulabchand. The applicant No. 2 Smt. Rajkumari is the wife of the applicant No. 3 Narayandas Chandak Applicant No. 5 is the son of the applicant No. 1 Gulabchand and his wife applicant No. 4 The applicant No. 5 was then doing his post-graduation in Medicine. Deceased Ku. Anita was the daughter of the applicant Nos. 1 and 4 and younger sister of the applicant No. 5. Deceased Anita who was a student of a L.A.D. College and had appeared for B.Com. Past-I examination and the result was declared on the very day i.e. on 29-6-1985. She had passed in first division. The applicants reside on the Main Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur in a three storyed building. The ground floor being occupied for the business purposes, whereas the first, second and third floor being in their occupation as a residential house. The prosecution alleges that on 29-6-1985, deceased Ku. Anita was admitted in the casualty ward of Medical College and Hospital Nagpur by her brother applicant No. 5 as she had suffered 3 stab injuries and a punctured wound on her abdomen. Two injuries were completely penetrating the abdomen. At the relevant time the applicant No. 5 Dr. Rajendra Chandak was doing his post-graduation in medicine, was in the Hospital. He received message of assault and having injuries on his sister Ku. Anita on telephone. This fact is substantiated by Dr. Kamble who is cited as a prosecution witness. Immediately after receiving the telephonic message the applicant No. 5 alongwith Dr. Kamble rushed to the house and shifted Ku. Anita to the Medical College and Hospital Nagpur and she was operated upon. The applicant No. 5 Dr. Anita on telephone. This fact is substantiated by Dr. Kamble who is cited as a prosecution witness. Immediately after receiving the telephonic message the applicant No. 5 alongwith Dr. Kamble rushed to the house and shifted Ku. Anita to the Medical College and Hospital Nagpur and she was operated upon. The applicant No. 5 Dr. Rajendra being a doctor he was all the time in the hospital. On two occasions he had brought the blood from the outside. In the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, there is a police booth. The report of incident was recorded at the police booth of Medical College, Nagpur. The police attached to the police booth in Medical College, Nagpur sent telephonic message at 16.45 hours to Sitabuldi Police Station about Ku. Anita having suffered injuries and her brother applicant No. 5 having admitted her in the Medical College and Hospital Nagpur. Shri Upadhyaya- P.S.I. went to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur to record her dying declaration. Ku Anita was in the operation theatre and operation was in progress. She could not regain consciousness and, therefore, her statement was not recorded. She succumbed to the injuries on the same night at about 9.30 p.m. To this effect Shri Upadhayaya-P.S.I. sent the message to Sitabuldi Police Station and to that effect entry is taken in station diary. Initially the investigation was conducted by Sitabuldi Police and subsequently it was handed over to Crime branch. After the investigation, the charge-sheet came to the presented against all the applicants/accused for the offence enumerated herein above. The entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The incriminating circumstances appearing against each of the accused are detailed in para 5 of the application. The circumstances are as under : (A) Circumstances appearing against accused No. 1 : i) He was seen in the shop from 12.30 p.m. to 2p.m. on the material date and thereafter was not seen in the shop. The incriminating circumstances appearing against each of the accused are detailed in para 5 of the application. The circumstances are as under : (A) Circumstances appearing against accused No. 1 : i) He was seen in the shop from 12.30 p.m. to 2p.m. on the material date and thereafter was not seen in the shop. ii) Upon the arrival of A.C.P. and the police personnel, he started weeping and is alleged to have said to A.C.P. Punjabrao Deshmukh ^^eqbks cpkoks lkgc** (iii) At or about 2.45 p.m. on that day, the door and the window of the second floor block of the accused was found to be closed and it needs to be stated at this juncture that there is not a singular statement in the entire charge-sheet that otherwise and normally, the said window and door used to be open. (B) Circumstances appearing against accused No. 2 : i) While the Police Inspector reached the place in the afternoon, she is said to have obstructed the entry of the police by standing in the door albeit by saying that there was no male person in the house. ii) She is alleged to have told the maid servants as also neighbours that either Anita has been assaulted by somebody or that she has been otherwise injured. iii) She was in the room on the first floor at about 2.45 p.m. at or about which time the door and window of the block of the second floor of the rear side was found closed. (C) Circumstances appearing against application No. 3 : 1) When P.S.I. Upadhyaya was questioning accused No. 1 in the Medical College when Anitas was in the casualty ward undergoing surgery, the accused No. 3 is alleged to have told accused No. 1 not to give any statement to the police and took him away. (D) Circumstances alleged against accused No. 4 : i) Under the nail clippings obtained from her, human blood was detected in the report of the chemical analyser, but the said report does not disclose whether it belonged to the blood group of the deceased, apart from the fact that the prosecution itself alleges that when Anita was brought down from the second floor to be boarded in a vehicle, the applicant No. 4 mother as naturally so, was in her company and had lifted her. (E) Circumstances alleged against the accused No. 5 : i) At the Medical College, on being asked by the police as to what had happened, he is alleged to have uttered ^^dkgh gh bkkys ukgh- M.L.C. ukgh- rqEgh cktwyk Ogk- igys vkEgkyk bykt d:/;k** such conduct being totally consistent with the normal human behaviour placed in that situation, the mind being projected only towards the means to save the life of his dear sister. ii) He told his relatives not to say anything to the police. iii) On being asked about the incident, he is stated to have uttered that he was busy in procuring blood and he would speak later and as a fact the blood of the group of deceased Anita not being available at the Medical College, blood was collected in about eight bottles from outside. iv) He is alleged to have said that until his Counsel arrives, he would not give any statement. 3. Admitting the prosecution as it is, an application before the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur was filed under section 227 of Cri.P. C. Contending that on the material referred to above unrebutted as it may be, the accused could not be put on trial and were liable to be discharged. It was specifically submitted that while framing a charge under section 228 of the Code on the material produced by the prosecution, there must be a reasonable possibility or a chance of the accused being found guilty of the offence and the provisions under section 227 of Cri.P.C. are engrafted and was calculated to eliminate the accused being put to a further harassment of a prolong and protracted trial and the Court is bound to discharge the accused if the circumstances alleged against the applicants/accused only create merely suspicion and did not cross the parameters converting into the circumstances of grave suspicion resulting in probability of a possible conviction. 4. The learned 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejected the application vide order dtd. 10-9-91. 4. The learned 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejected the application vide order dtd. 10-9-91. The learned lower Court observed in para 17 as follows: "Thus, the sum and substance of the above discussion is that though there is no direct evidence of an eye witness, there are circumstances on record which create strong and grave suspicion regarding implicity of the accused in the crime and when there is such strong and grave suspicion against the accused, it is sufficient at the stage to frame charge against the accused and to proceed against them." 5. The learned trial Judge considered the following circumstances as abnormal conduct on the part of applicants/accused which fathom the working of guilty mind. Considering these aspects the learned trial Judge arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient material to frame the charge and to proceed with the prosecution. The circumstances are as under : 1. The accused No. 1 was seen in the shop during 12.30 hours and 2.00 p.m. and thereafter he was not seen in the shop. 2. On arrival of Shri Punjabrao Deshmukh Assistant Commissioner of Police, the accused No. 1 resting his head on his chest started sweeping and said that be saved. 3. Applicant No. 2 Smt. Rajkumari Chandak obstructed the police from entering in the house. It is further alleged against her that she told her maid servant that deceased Anita, on the day of incident, was sleeping in her room on second floor. So also informed other persons that Ku. Anita was beaten by somebody else. The prosecution evidence is that the applicant No. 2 Rajkumari was on the first floor on the day of incident at 2.40 p.m. 4. When Shri Upadyaya-P.S.I. questioned the accused No. 1 in the Medical College and Hospital, regarding the incident, the applicant No. 3 Narayandas Chandak alleged to have told him not to give any statement and saying so he took accused No. 1 Gulabdas with him. 5. Against the applicant No. 4 Smt. Gayatribai Chandak the mother of the deceased is concerned, in her nail clipping according to C.A. report, human blood detected. 6. In respect of the applicant No. 5 Dr. Rajendra, elder brother of deceased Anita is that when the police enquired about the incident he informed that nothing has happened and he should be allowed to give treatment first to his sister. 6. In respect of the applicant No. 5 Dr. Rajendra, elder brother of deceased Anita is that when the police enquired about the incident he informed that nothing has happened and he should be allowed to give treatment first to his sister. He also informed to his relative not to tell anything to police. It is further alleged against the applicant No. 5 that he will make a statement after the arrival of his Counsel. 7. According to prosecution the doors and windows of the 2nd floor where the alleged incident alleged to have been taken place were found closed. 8. A mountain has been made out of mole, considering the circumstances that only because none of the applicants lodged the report with the police and no explanation has been sought by them, shows their involvement in the crime. 6. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that merely resting his head on the chest of the Assistant Commissioner of Police saying to save him by accused No. 1. does not mean that he is a guilty person. He being in grief, it is but natural not only in respect of the applicant No. 1 whose daughter was assaulted and was in pool of blood but it would be in a case of any other father to say to save him. The learned Judge in para 14 of his order wrongly observed that the C.A. report shows that the applicant No. 4's nail clippings were found stained with blood and the blood group was of the deceased. This is contrary to the report of C.A. The chemical analyser made a mention in the report that the grouping was not possible. It is, thus, a wrong observation. 7. It is submitted that merely the windows and doors were found closed, it did not give rise any suspicion and that too against any of the applicants. According to the applicants, it being a rear side where there is a lane, the doors and windows are always closed. No evidence has been collected by the prosecution examining any witness much less the neighbours to substantiate that earlier the windows and doors were never closed and it was the first time to close the windows and doors. Without securing such evidence this aspect leads no where. 8. No evidence has been collected by the prosecution examining any witness much less the neighbours to substantiate that earlier the windows and doors were never closed and it was the first time to close the windows and doors. Without securing such evidence this aspect leads no where. 8. Merely obstructing the Police Officer entering in the house by the applicant No. 2 Smt. Rajkumari in absence of any male members in the house, admittedly other applicants being in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, does not show her involvement in the case. 9. It appears that the learned trial Judge is overwhelmed by the circumstance that none of the applicant lodged the report to the police about the incident. The view expressed by the learned trial Judge is erroneous. It is but natural that when their blood relation Ku. Anita was found in an injured condition, the first and foremost duty cast upon them is to save her life and the applicants done the same thing. Injured Ku. Anita was immediately removed to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur where she was operated, blood was brought from the outside agencies and all the members tried their level best to save the life of deceased Ku. Anita. The fact remains that immediately injured Anita was admitted in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, the information of the incident was given to police booth situated in the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur who in term reported the matter to Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur. It is, thus, clear that at the earliest hours the police was in know of the incident of stabbing and admission of injured Ku. Anita in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital Nagpur. As the police were in know of the stabbing and her admission in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, it is immaterial who reported the matter to police. The circumstance cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, be a circumstance to create grave suspicion and that too against applicants/accused i.e. parents, uncle, aunt real brother of deceased Anita. 10. To attract the provisions of section 120-B of I.P.C., there is no discussion regarding the evidence which shows the conspiracy. The circumstance cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, be a circumstance to create grave suspicion and that too against applicants/accused i.e. parents, uncle, aunt real brother of deceased Anita. 10. To attract the provisions of section 120-B of I.P.C., there is no discussion regarding the evidence which shows the conspiracy. In para 16 of the order, it is observed that "this will also go to show that the accused are suppressing the real state of affairs and this conduct itself indicates their conspiracy to make a plot." 11. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. Thus, it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The prosecution must further show that the agreement was entered into and that there was a meeting of minds between two or more persons or as is described etymologically, conspiracy means-breathing together and two people cannot breathe together unless they put their heads together. It is settled that an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. However, according to Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused, there is no such evidence against the applicants/accused and Shri Mardikar the learned Special P.P. also did not brought to my notice any evidence to satisfy the ingredients of section 120-B of I.P.C. 12. From the material placed by the prosecution before the Court, is it possible to infer that two or more persons had entered into an agreement unlawful design, because the unlawful design is the root of the charges? Can it be said by reading the statements on which the prosecution relies that all the petitioners had agreed to do an unlawful design or act? In my opinion, after considering the entire record and the statements, there is no evidence regarding the existence of any such agreement between the applicants/accused. 13. Can it be said by reading the statements on which the prosecution relies that all the petitioners had agreed to do an unlawful design or act? In my opinion, after considering the entire record and the statements, there is no evidence regarding the existence of any such agreement between the applicants/accused. 13. It is true that under the provisions of section 228 of Cri.P.C., A Judge can frame the charges after hearing the parties and after considering the records and documents if he is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is triable either by the C.J.M. or by himself. In such a situation he will frame charges against the accused. The provisions of section 228 make no reference for recording the reasons in support of framing the charges. 14. The Sessions Judge has to give his reason so as to enable the Superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the case of (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others)1, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1489. The learned Chief Justice, Y.V. Chandrachud held that : "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." It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine the scope of the provisions enjoining duty upon the Judge at the time of framing the charge and scope of an enquiry which requires to examine the documents and records which are referred to in section 227 of the Cri. P.C. In more than one Judgment the Supreme Court has laid down the kind of application of Judicial mind by the learned Judge to the documents and records at the time of framing charge. In (Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja)2 ,A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to be followed by the Sessions Judge at the time of framing of the charges. In this case His Lordship Mr. In (Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja)2 ,A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to be followed by the Sessions Judge at the time of framing of the charges. In this case His Lordship Mr. Justice Sarkaria who spoke for the Court has relied on the decision in the (State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh)3, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018 and has observed as follows (at P. 1393 of Cri.L.J.) :--- "It may be remembered that the case was at the state of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the Investigating Police Officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test proof and judgment which is to applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to applied at this stage of section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 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 charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."(Emphasis supplied). In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018 the Supreme Court laid down a few guidelines which are of relevance and importance in this case and they may be referred to here. Referring to the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was observed in that Judgment as follows : (at pp 1607, 1608 of Cri L.J.) "Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatiable with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if it cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. If the scale of span as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But, if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 and not under section 227" (Emphasis supplied). According to this Judgment, if there is a strong suspicion against the accused and the matter remains in the region of suspicion, it cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. According to this Judgment, if there is a strong suspicion against the accused and the matter remains in the region of suspicion, it cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But the inference which must be drawn is that if there is a strong suspicion existing at the initial stage which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. These observations will have to be applied to the case against each of the accused with reference to the evidence which the prosecution proposes to lead in this case. 15. The Supreme Court has laid down various principles which are to be taken into account at time of framing charges under the provisions of section 227, in a case of (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another)4, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 366 as under : "1. That 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; 2. Whether 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. 3. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 4. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 4. That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth-piece 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 appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." In the Judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar (supra), Their Lordships at page 157 of Cri.L.J. observed as follows : "The words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution., but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function, after the trial starts. At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is wrong to say that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming commission of the offence. It affects persons liberty. The responsibility of framing of the charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on record, it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution." 16. These above citations have been considered in the case of (Dr. It affects persons liberty. The responsibility of framing of the charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on record, it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution." 16. These above citations have been considered in the case of (Dr. Dattatray Narayan Sammant and others v. State of Maharashtra)5, 1982, Cri.L.J. 1025 (Bombay High Court, Bhonsale, J.). 17. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1489 : 1977 Cri.L.J. 1125. Their Lordships in para 9 referred reliance on the case of (R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab)6, 1960(3) S.C.R. 388 in which it was held that : "In the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of 1898, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not. That may be so. But in the instant case the question is not whether any reliance can be placed on the veracity of this or that particular witness. The fact of the matter is that there is no material on the record on the basis of which any Tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the respondents are in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. Gajendragadkar, J. who spoke for the Court in Kapur's case observes in his judgment that it was not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The three instances cited in the judgment as to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as whole some as the one conferred by section 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula." In para 10, Their Lordship further observed that : "The order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial. To an extent section 227 of the new Code contains an analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It was held by this Court while considering the true scope of section 203 of the old Code that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must apply his judicial mind to the material on which he had to form his judgment. These decisions show that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses a 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." 18. The scope of the provision of sections 227 and 229 of Cri.P.C. are discussed in a case of (Sati Kanta Guha and another v. State of West Bengal)7, 1977 Cri.L.J. 1644 (Calcutta D.B.). In para 10, Their Lordship observed that : "For the purpose of framing charge, therefore, the Judge is to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused as been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of the said materials there is a reasonable probability or chance, as we normally call it, of the accused being found guilty of the offence alleged. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Judge will be at liberty to presume "that the accused has committed an offence" as mentioned in section 228 of the Code for the purpose of framing charge. On the contrary, if the answer is in the negative for want of sufficient material, the Judge shall discharge the accused as not charge can be framed". 19. Shri Mardikar, the learned Special P.P. fairly admitted that there is no direct evidence and the entire case is based on the circumstances collected by the prosecution which was conducted by C.B.I. He also admitted that the prosecution could not collect the evidence regarding the motive behind the commission of ghastly murder of Ku. Anita. He enumerated certain circumstances as follows : 1. Anita. He enumerated certain circumstances as follows : 1. Chemical Analyser found the bed sheet stained with blood, however, appears washed. 2. Obstruction to the Police Officer not to enter in the house. 3. Getting windows and doors closed. 4. The shawl which was alleged to have been on the person of deceased Ku. Anita when she was stabbed has corresponding cuts. Considering the season of summer days, one cannot expect that a person would cover with a shawl. According to him the assailants covered the deceased with shawl so that at the time of assault she could not peep into the face of the assailants and disclose the name/names. 5. None of the accused extended their co-operation with the Police Officer when they enquired about the incident. 6. Applicants/accused did not report the incident which shows the working of their mind and exposes their guilty mind. According to Shri Mardikar, the learned Special P.P. there is no dispute regarding the prepositions laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and other High Courts as relied upon by Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused. He further submitted that however, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances placed by and relied upon by Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused, there is sufficient material to create a strong suspicion against the applicants/accused and, therefore, the learned trial Judge was right to reject the application for discharge. 20. Shri Mardikar, the learned Special P.P. relied on the case of (Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of Maharashtra)8, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1217. The appellant/accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. He was addicted to heavy drinking. At the time of death of his wife there was no other person in the house except the accused. Trustworthy medical opined that the death of appellant/accused's wife was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. On the basis of this evidence it was held that "in all human probability, it was the accused and none else who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death". Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to Mr. Trustworthy medical opined that the death of appellant/accused's wife was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. On the basis of this evidence it was held that "in all human probability, it was the accused and none else who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death". Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to Mr. Mardikar, the learned Special P.P., the evidence in the case in hand being of the similar nature, because at the relevant time the applicants 1 to 4 were in the house and considering other aspects which have been brought on record, the learned trial Court was just and proper in rejecting the application for discharge. 21. On the contrary, Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused took me through the circumstances considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case relied by Shri Mardikar, the learned Special P.P. and particularly reading the para 7 of the judgment. 22. The circumstances which considered by Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) are manifold than the circumstances which relied upon by the prosecution in the case in hand are altogether different and thereby the case cited is of no assistance to the prosecution. 23. Shri Mardikar, the learned Special P.P. also relied upon in the case of (State of Karnataka v. Khaja Jussain)9, 1982(3) Supreme Court Cases 456 where the circumstantial evidence and particularly last seen together has been considered as incriminating circumstances for the purposes of considering the provisions of section 227 of Cri.P.C. The facts of the case before Their Lordship are altogether different than the circumstances, in the case in hand and, therefore, this case is also of no assistance to the prosecution. 24. In the instant case the evidence is of a circumstantial nature and the prosecution has to stand on its legs without deriving any strength from weakness of defence. In the case of (S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat)10, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 917 (D.B.). 24. In the instant case the evidence is of a circumstantial nature and the prosecution has to stand on its legs without deriving any strength from weakness of defence. In the case of (S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat)10, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 917 (D.B.). Their Lordship held that : "In a case of murder in which the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is said to be drawn by the prosecution must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also they must entirely be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence." "In a case of murder, the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence and that it is not the law where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court". In the instant case, the prosecution failed to collect the evidence in respect of the motive to commit murder of Ku. Anita who is the close blood relation of the applicants. It is well established that when there is a direct evidence regarding the offence committed, the evidence regarding the motive will pale into insignificant. It means that the evidence of motives is not necessary for convicting the accused when there is clear, cogent and reliable evidence against the accused. But, it is also true that the evidence of motive throws much lights on the actions of those who are involved in the case. In the absence of any evidence of motive sentence is not proper and the test of arriving at the truth is rendered some what difficult. It may be that in certain cases the motive can not be ascertained and the efforts should be made by the prosecution to find it. In other words, when there is no direct evidence or a direct evidence is scant and the evidence on record is only circumstantial but the fact that no motive is capable of being established against the accused, would be an important circumstance in favour of the accused. In other words, when there is no direct evidence or a direct evidence is scant and the evidence on record is only circumstantial but the fact that no motive is capable of being established against the accused, would be an important circumstance in favour of the accused. The mens rea and ingredient of offence is discussed in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George)11, A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 722. Their Lordships observed that : "It is all utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in mind that unless the Status either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime the accused should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind. Absolutely liability is not to be lightly presumed but has to be clearly established". 25. No doubt a young girl Ku. Anita was brutally assaulted in the day light in her residential house. Surprisingly the parents, uncle aunt and real elder brother are involved in such a ghastly murder of deceased Anita. It is really shocking affair. It will not be out place to mention that no parents and close blood relations will assault their young child in such a barbaric manner without any reason whatsoever. Very few incidents of human sacrifice are known to the human beings but such sacrifices are not even by their blood and that too of such a grown up aged person. Human sacrifice is of a male or female of tender ages. As no motive or mens rea has been ascribed by the prosecution, it is difficult to believe that the applicants will be so brutally towards Ku. Anita who is their own blood passed on the very day in first division in the examination of B.Com. Part I. This solitary circumstance creates a suspicion in one's mind regarding the truthfulness or worthiness in the prosecution story. 26. The circumstances which have been incorporated and discussed in the preceding paras, the prosecution could afford materials for suspicion in a suspecting bent of mind, of the applicants in their actions, behaviour and conduct. But the circumstances are not from which the conclusion of guilt could be drawn against the applicants/accused. 26. The circumstances which have been incorporated and discussed in the preceding paras, the prosecution could afford materials for suspicion in a suspecting bent of mind, of the applicants in their actions, behaviour and conduct. But the circumstances are not from which the conclusion of guilt could be drawn against the applicants/accused. Finding a young girl in a pool of blood, it is but natural, for not only the parents but every relations and occupants of the house, in such a grief to speak nothing. It will be an endeavour of every relations that they will first try to save the life of the victim than to rush to the Police Station to lodge the report and thereby spend valuable time. As the deceased Ku. Anita had serious injuries on her person, wasting of time is nothing but to drive their child towards death. In the instant case immediately injured Anita was removed to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur and the applicant No. 4 being doctor tried his level best to save her life arranging for the operation. One expects such type of conduct from each and every relations. The circumstances which alleged to be omissions on the part of the applicants/accused, considering their grief and the problem to save Ku. Anita at the relevant time, by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be suspicion. This aspect has been dealt in a case of Sati Kanta Guha and another v. State of West Bengal, 1977 Cri.L.J. 1644 Calcutta D.B., in para 25 of the judgment. In para 25, Sharma, J., while agreeing with the order passed by Lord Mr. Justice Bhattacharya, held that : "On making an analytical and critical study of the materials, which at this stage of the case necessarily consisted of various statements recorded either under section 161 or 164 of the Cri.P.C., multifarious medical reports and different seizure lists, I am of opinion that there is not sufficient materials to meet the requirements of section 228 of the Code aforesaid for framing charges against accused Satikanta Guha and Pritilata Guha. Although some of their actions and conduct could afford materials for suspicion in a suspecting bent of mind, there is, however, not enough substance in those behavioural materials to satisfy an unsuspecting judicial mind which must proceed on the assumption of innocence of the accused, that there are sufficient materials on record to justify the framing of charges under the present requirements of the law which by the enactment in 1973 has been slightly further weighed in favour of the accused. In making this assessment I am not overlooking the position in law emphasized upon by Mr. Choudhury, the learned Advocate for the prosecution that in a case dependent on circumstantial evidence inevitable inferences have got to be drawn from facts which are available and likely to be established in trial. When circumstantial evidence is the mainstay of the prosecution case, links must be there for creating an unbroken chain and for that purpose inferences drawable must also be such as to rule out an equally plausible rival inference. Therefore, keeping in mind all this as well as the paucity of materials, I have been driven to the conclusion that charges framed against the accused aforenamed have got to be quashed. In this connection I should point out that section 227 r/w section 228 of the Cri.P.C., is a precious safeguard, so to express a prebattle protection conferred by Parliament in its wisdom upon accused persons charge-sheeted by the Police for trial in a Court of Session without collecting and collating materials sufficient to warrant a full-fledged trial. This provision in law is calculated to eliminate further harassment to the accused persons when the evidentiary materials gathered after a prolonged and thorough investigation of the occurrence fall short of minimum legal requirement. Therefore, this provision of law cannot be reduced into a dead letter and accused persons made to undergo the rigour of a futile trial where such a trial on materials available is palpably not warranted against them." 27. In the result, in view of the facts and circumstances considered in the preceding paras and law laid down and discussed, the material on which the prosecution proposes to rely against the applicants/accused is wholly inadequate to sustain the charge that they are in any manner connected with the assault on deceased Ku. Anita. In the result, in view of the facts and circumstances considered in the preceding paras and law laid down and discussed, the material on which the prosecution proposes to rely against the applicants/accused is wholly inadequate to sustain the charge that they are in any manner connected with the assault on deceased Ku. Anita. Therefore, since there are no sufficient ground to proceed with against the applicants/accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 202 and 120-B of I.P.C. in Session trial No. 482/88, they be wholly discharged from the Session trial No. 482/88. 28. Thus, the application is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for discharge is set aside. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Application allowed. -----