ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. The State has filed his revision against an order of discharge passed by Sessions Court. 2. The non-applicant Rikhiram Patel was at the material time Lecturer in a High School in village Dhamda of district Durg in Madhya Pradesh. He was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offence of murdering his wife Kamlabai. The Sessions Court, however, "upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with", as contemplated by Section 227 Cr. P.c. 1973, thought that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the non-applicant. Accordingly, the Sessions Court by order dated 6.7.1984, discharged the non-applicant of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., Aggrieved by that order, the State has filed this revision. 3. At the stage of Sections 227/228 Cr. P.C. 1973, the Sessions Judge has to find out, if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce, even if unrebutted, would show that the accused committed the offence or not. If not, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused should be discharged. The truth, varacity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at that stage. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. See State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 . That is not to say that the Sessions Judge is to merely act as a post-office to frame a charge at the behest of the prosecution. He has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case, in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Sessions Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. See Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC 366 and the latest decision Niranjan Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj AIR 1990 SC 1962 . 4. It appears that the prosecution case in the case in hand was to rest on circumstantial evidence. See Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC 366 and the latest decision Niranjan Singh v. Jitendra Bhimraj AIR 1990 SC 1962 . 4. It appears that the prosecution case in the case in hand was to rest on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which the prosecution relied was that on the night intervening 23rd and 24th February, 1984, the non-applicant and his wife Kamlabai had slept in the same house, i.e. in the house of the non-applicant, and on the following morning, Kamlabai was found to be missing from the house. The force of this circumstance is considerably eroded by the fact that it is the prosecution case itself that one Vimlabai, a girl aged about 12 years, who is niece of the non-applicant, also lived in that house. She had slept with deceased Kamlahai in a room of the house while the non-applicant had slept in another room on the material night. It is in the police statement of Vimlahai that she noticed nothing on that night. She woke up on the following morning only to find that her aunt Kamlahai was missing. She woke up her maternal uncle i.e. the non-applicant to tell him that aunt was missing. 5. The next circumstance, on which the prosecution wanted to rely was that dead body of Kamlabai was found in a well in close proximity to the house of the non-applicant. The dead body was found when it started to float in the well on the morning of 26th February 1984 i.e. on the 3rd day when Kamlabai was first found to be missing. A reference to the spot map, which was part of the record, would show that the well is just adjacent to Municipal Office Dhamda. On the other hand, it is about 10 metres away from the house of the non-applicant. In that way, the well was nearer to the Municipal Office than to the house of the non-applicant. It appears in the police statement of Vimlabai that continuously on 24th, 25th 26th February, 1984, in the morning time, she had gone to fetch water from the well in question. She could not see the body of the deceased on any of those occasions. It appears in the police statement of Vimlabai that continuously on 24th, 25th 26th February, 1984, in the morning time, she had gone to fetch water from the well in question. She could not see the body of the deceased on any of those occasions. It was elicited by the Police from the doctor performing post mortem examination and he gave opinion that once the body drowned below water, it would float in about 24 hours in summer season and 2 to 3 days in winter season. It was, therefore, not very surprising that the dead body could be noticed only on the 3rd day. What is more important is the fact that the two doctors performing post mortem examination found that there were absolutely no marks of injuries on the dead body. The cause of the death could not be ascertained. It could not even be said if the death was suicidal or homicidal. 6. It appears from the record of the case that the non-applicant had been frantically searching for his wife Kamlabai after she had disappeared. He had sent various persons and had himself gone to various places to search for his wife. Ultimately, he had in the evening of 25.2.84 i.e. even before the discovery of the dead body in the well, had reported to the police about the fact of missing of his wife. In the report, he had candidly disclosed that on the material night, his wife had proposed to him that she should be allowed to go to her maternal house. He had refused saying that their house was to be plastered and annual examination were also taking place. He had told her that she might go afterwards. It was also reported that his wife had thereafter kept mum and had gone to sleep. It is true that a guilty person may also make a pretence of searching for his murdered wife. But one cannot start with the assumption that the non-applicant was making a pretence. That would be begging the question of guilt and would be unwarranted even at the stage contemplated under Sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. 7. It was part of the prosecution story that relations between the non-applicant and his wife Kamlabai were sour. The prosecution proposed to adduce evidence that the non-applicant had slapped and ill-treated his wife Kamlabai on certain occasions. P.C. 7. It was part of the prosecution story that relations between the non-applicant and his wife Kamlabai were sour. The prosecution proposed to adduce evidence that the non-applicant had slapped and ill-treated his wife Kamlabai on certain occasions. The alleged misbehaviour had never reached serious proportions. As would appear from the police statement of Vimlabai, every time her aunt and maternal uncle quarreled, they would of their own come to speaking terms. It is Vimlabai's statement that her aunt used to confide in her that her husband used to beat her and also himself start speaking with her. It would, thus, appear that the relationship between the couple was bitter-sweet relationship, so often found in the case of many couples. The police also seized from the non-applicant three letters purporting to have been written and/or signed by Kamlabai. Those letters were atleast one year old. The letters were confessional in nature admitting about alleged moral lapse on the part of Kamlabai and expressing her desire to seek divorce from her husband, making him free to marry again. It may be fair to infer that non-applicant was great tormentor completely dominating his wife. But the fact remains that the letters were as old as one year. If this circumstance pointed is the possibility that non-applicant had a motive to get rid of his wife, it also pointed to the possibility that Kamlabai in moments of deep mental stress might have decided to commit suicide. 8. It was also the prosecution case that Kamlabai was in fact second wife of the non-applicant. The first wife named Smt. Urmilabai had met with accidental death because of burns; vide post mortem report dated 27.2.75. In other words, the first wife had died about 9 years prior to the present incident. There was however no evidence to show that non-applicant had set-fire to his first wife. It would be wrong to get prejudiced and made surmises against an individual. 9. Lastly, it was also a part of the prosecution story that about a year prior to the present incident, the non-applicant had brought his sister-in-law i.e. Kamlabai's younger sister, aged just 8 years, to his house and had kept her in his house for 3 days against the wishes of his mother-in-law. The suggestion of the prosecution is that non-applicant wanted to marry that chit of a girl, aged just 8 years. The suggestion of the prosecution is that non-applicant wanted to marry that chit of a girl, aged just 8 years. The suggestion, to say the least was preposterous. That girl of 8 years was already married and it is said that when the non-applicant brought that girl to his house, he broke the bangles of that girl which were a symbol of her marriage. That would only show that the non-applicant was opposed to the idea of a tender girl having been married at that age. It is difficult to gulp the suggestion that the non- applicant waited for one year and then got rid of his wife so that he might be able to marry his sister-in-law who was still a child at the time of the present incident. 10. The above is all that was sought to be proved by the prosecution. This Court is clearly of the opinion that the above materials, even accepted at their face value, did not make out a prima facie case against the non-applicant for the accusation of murdering his wife. The framing of charge would have only resulted in waste of public time and money and in harassment to the accused/non-applicant. The learned Sessions Judge was not wrong in discharging the non-applicant. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no force in this revision. The revision is dismissed.