JUDGMENT A.B. Mukherjee, J. : The revisional application arises out of Order No. 6 dated 22.11.95 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Contai in Sessions Trial Case No. XXVII on September, 1995 arising out of G.R. Case No. 233 of 1994 whereby he rejected the prayer for the accused petitioner for discharging him in accordance with s. 22 Cr.P.C. 2. On the basis of written information lodged on 6th of June, 1994 by one Shri Hridaya Singh a that his son Ajit, aged about 20 years and a student of class X was found in an unconscious state in the Village burning Ghat and a container of poison and a packet containing vermillian were found lying by his side. It is alleged that prior to date of incident which was on 14.3.94 there was a rumour in the village that Ajit was having an affair with one Parul, daughter of Sudhangahu Singha of the same Village. Acting on this rumour Sudhabgshu Singha and some other co-villagers including the present petitioner are alleged to have tortured both physically and mentally, Ajit and his family members for all these five/six months. On the day of incident at about 22.30 hours Sudhangshu Singha and others including the present petitioner went to the house of the informant and branded his son Ajit as a thief and made a thorough search for him in the house. Ajit was however not available in the house. In the next morning he was found lying unconscious in the burning Ghat as stated earlier. He was shifted to the Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment where he expired on 16th of March, 1994. It has been alleged that Ajit committed suicide by taking poison due to torture of the accuded persons. Contai P.S.Case No. 79/94 dated 6.4.94 under s. 306 IPC was accordingly stated. It ended in a charge sheet against thirteen (13) persons including the present petitioner. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. All the accused persons including the present petitioner preferred an application under s. 227 Cr.P.C. before the Assistant Sessions Judge on 9.11.95 praying for discharge. After hearing both the sides and after going through the material collected in course of investigation the Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of discharge by the impugned order. 4. 3. All the accused persons including the present petitioner preferred an application under s. 227 Cr.P.C. before the Assistant Sessions Judge on 9.11.95 praying for discharge. After hearing both the sides and after going through the material collected in course of investigation the Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of discharge by the impugned order. 4. Being aggrieved the present revisional application has been preferred under s. 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that the Ld. Trial Judge did not apply his mind properly with a view to come to a decision as enjoined by s. 227 Cr.P.C. The allegations and the materials reveal during investigation do not make out a case for abetment to commit suicide. The power under the said section is alleged to have not been properly exercised by the Ld. Judge. It is alleged that the materials emerging from the statements recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. even if translated into evidence would not make out a case for abetment to commit suicide. 5. Apart from hearing the Ld. Advocates appearing for the petitioner and also the State, opportunity was also given to the defacto-complainant to be represented by an Advocate appointed by him and the said Ld. Advocate was also heard over the revisional application. 6. The main contention of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that his client stands in a different footing from the remaining accused persons in as much as he is not a member of the family or even remotely related to the defacto-complainant Sudhangshu Singha. It has been argued that the statement recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. do not prima facie make out a case for abetment to commit suicide. The Ld. Advocate has taken me through the statements recorded by the I.O. during investigation and submitted that while four of the witnesses spoke about the alleged commissions of theft by the deceased, the rest were silent on the point. He also relied on a number of decisions in support of his prayer for discharge including 1990 Cr.L.J.169, 81 CWN 713, 1977 Cr.L.J. 1644, 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 233, 1977 Cr. L.J. 1125, AIR 1990, SC 1961 and also an unreported decision' of this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1987 (Niharbala Banerjee & Anr. vs. State). Of the cases cited by him some related to Appeals preferred from an order of conviction. L.J. 1125, AIR 1990, SC 1961 and also an unreported decision' of this Court being Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1987 (Niharbala Banerjee & Anr. vs. State). Of the cases cited by him some related to Appeals preferred from an order of conviction. Obviously the scope of scrutinising evidence in connection with writing out a final Judgement leading to conviction or acquittal is much more wide than in the course of hearing under s. 227 Cr.P.C. where the only purpose for the Court is to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Wording used in the said section is analogous to the wordings of s. 203 Cr.P.C. The difference being that at the s. 203 Cr.P.C. stage, the accused is not in the picture and there is no question of hearing him but in the stage under s. 227 Cr.P.C. the accused need be heard along with the prosecution besides perusal of materials collected in course of investigation. But the common element in both the section is that the Court is to come to a prima facie finding as whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 7. In the case reported in 1.977 Cr.L.J. 1644 the scope of s. 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. have been discussed. It is to 'be' seem at this stage whether the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed by him and there is a reasonable probability or chance of the accused being found guilty. It has been held that if the materials on record show that there is simply a probability of the accused being convicted, a charge may be framed and at this stage the question of strict admissibility of evidence does not arise. In the case reported in AIR 1990 SC 1961, number of decisions on this point has been discussed. The principle enunciated in this case relevant for our purpose is that on the stage of framing charge the Court has undoubtedly the power to sift all 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 proceed with the trial. 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 proceed with the trial. It has also been held that at this stage of framing of the charge the Judge is to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of evidence and the documents produced before him, any basic infirmities in the case and shall not merely act as a post office or a Mouth-piece for the prosecution. Basing upon the dictum laid down in the case Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja, it has been held that the standard of test, proof and judgement which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of s.227 or 228 Cr.P.C. but even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials may justify framing of the charge against the accused. In the case reported in 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 233 the charge framed against the Principal of a School under s. 306 IPC for alleged suicide of a student was quashed by this Court where factum of the case was completely different from the present one in as much as an isolated incident which was also of doubtful veracity followed by suicide of a student in her home gave rise to the said case under s. 306 IPC and charge was accordingly framed by Ld. Sessions Judge which was ultimately set aside having regard to the facts and circumstances disclosed by materials collected during investigation. The fact of the case reported in 1990 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter "169 also materially different from the present one. In that case owing to occasional torture and ill-treatment, a person decided to take his life. It was held that in such a circumstance the person who inflicted the torture or ill-treatment may not be said to have abetted the commission of suicide. The case reported in 81 CWN 713 was an appeal preferred from an order of conviction and as such it has a less relevancy in our case. However, there are some element common in both the cases, namely, in the said case there was the evidence of systematic ill-treatment, cruelty and instigation which resulted in the commission of suicide. The case reported in 81 CWN 713 was an appeal preferred from an order of conviction and as such it has a less relevancy in our case. However, there are some element common in both the cases, namely, in the said case there was the evidence of systematic ill-treatment, cruelty and instigation which resulted in the commission of suicide. The un-reported decision of Criminal Appeal 355 of 1987 obviously arises out of an order of conviction. In that case cruelty was perpetrated not immediately before the occurrence and as such it could not be ascertained whether such cruelty had proximate relation with the commission of suicide. The test applied "in that case cannot be applied in the present case simply because' the stage is completely different and as such there is no scope for the trial Judge at the time of framing of the charge to apply the same test as laid down in the reported decision before according to the prayer of discharge preferred by the petitioner. 8. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the defacto-complainant who was subsequently added as party following the application to that effect also cited a number of decisions including 1989 SCC (Cr.) 285. The test laid down in that case is also the same as laid down in the case reported in AIR 1990 SC 1961. 9. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the State however contended that the petitioner at the stage of framing of charge under s. 228 Cr.P.C. shall get enough opportunity to agitate the point and as such the rejection of the prayer for discharge by the Trial Judge over an application preferred under s. 227 Cr.P.C. is perfectly justified. The Ld. Advocate in my opinion has a mistaken view about the scope of s. 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. A scrutiny of these two sections will at once lead to the conclusion that these two sections are to be taken together. Section 227 Cr.P.C. casts a duty on the Trial Judge to consider the record of the case and documents submitted therewith and hear the submissions of the accused and also prosecution on this point and in the event the Trial Judge does not find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused after assigning reasons. Section 228 Cr.P.C. begins with the words "if after such consideration and hearing aforesaid the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence ..............". This shows that there is no scope for a further hearing at the time of framing of the charge but the scope is limited to the hearing under s. 227 Cr.P.C. In other words if the Trial Judge find that there is no ground sufficient for proceeding against the accused following a hearing in the manner as laid down under s. 227 Cr.P.C. it is his duty to discharge the accused and to assign reason but if after such hearing the Trial Judge is of opinion that there are ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame charge in terms of s.228 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the view of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the State cannot be accepted. 10. After keeping in consideration the law laid down for consideration of materials at the stage under s.227 Cr.P.C. it is necessary to go through the materials and the statements collected by the I.O. in course of the investigation. I have perused the relevant materials from the Case Diary, namely, F.I.R. and the Statement under s. 161 Cr.P.C. It appears that there was some sort of affair between the deceased Ajit and the daughter of the defacto-complainant and the matter was widely discussed in the village since both of them are co-villagers. The witnesses in course of their statement to the I.O. spoke about the continuous ill-treatment and pressure exercised upon Ajit and members of his family. The material further show that on some occasion the accused persons being co-villagers even assaulted Ajit. It is also the material that being cornered the defacto-complainant wanted the matter to be discussed in some sort of meeting in the village but before the said meeting could be held on 14.3.94 around 10.30 P.M. the accused persons are reported to have stormed in the house of the defacto complainant branded Ajit as a thief and made a thorough search for him in the said house• but Ajit was not found available on his bed. The inmates of the house at night made a search for Ajit but he was no where found and in the early morning he was found lying upside down in the village Burning Ghat and as per the FIR a container said to contend poison and a packet of vermilion were found nearby. Froth was found to come out from the mouth of Ajit who was taken to the Sub-Divisional Hospital where he expired on 16th of March, 1994. In course of post-mortem examination the Doctor opined that the death was due to poisoning ante-mortem and suicidal in nature. However, he reserved his finding subject to confirmation of Chemical Analyst's report. The post-mortem report also found 4-5 scratches by pin pointed object present on the back of the waist of deceased vertical in nature which according to him were also ante-mortem in nature. The story of storming into the house of defacto-complainant, search for Ajit, subsequent discovery of Ajit in an un-conscious state in the Burning Ghat and finding of a container said to contain poison have been supported by all the witnesses examined by the I.O. The story of recovery of a packet of vermilion has not however, been supported by the witnesses. 11. From the above, it may be stated this much at this stage that there is a strong suspicion in favour of involvement of the present petitioner with the suicide of Ajit. Whether or not the ingredients under s.306 IPC will be proved to the hilt by the prosecution can be decided only after full trial when evidence is laid by the prosecution but at this stage this much can be said that there was a suicide and prior to that there was the allegation of consistent torture on Ajit for five/six months. It may also be pointed out that of 3 accused petitioners who stand practically on the same footing, judging from the nature of the materials disclosed during investigation the present petitioner alone has chosen this forum for getting an order of discharge. After giving my careful consideration to the materials on record I am not inclined to exercise the inherent power vested in this Court at this stage. The revisional application accordingly cannot be allowed. After giving my careful consideration to the materials on record I am not inclined to exercise the inherent power vested in this Court at this stage. The revisional application accordingly cannot be allowed. It is however made clear that any observation made in course of this judgement shall not influence the mind of the Trial Judge either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused. 12. The revisional application accordingly stand dismissed on contest. All stay orders stand vacated, the Trial Judge shall proceed with the Trial expeditiously. Let the C.D. be made over to the Ld. P.P.-in-charge. Application dismissed.