P. K. JAIN, J. Heard Sri U. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 25-7-97 directing framing of the charge against the revisionist and also against charge -dated 25-7-97 under Sections 302 read with Sec- tion34,ipcand201,ipc. 3. On the report dated 30-6-95 a case under Sections 363/365/302/201/120-B/34, IPC was registered against the revisionist and three others. Allegations were that Smt. Sushma Singh, mother of the first informant, was untraceable since 7-6- 95. Her (first-informants) father had illicit relations with Asha Singh and she suspected both of them had committed murder of Sushma Singh. Prior to this incident also they had attempted to com mit murder of Smt. Sushma Singh and a case in this regard is pending in district Sagar, State of Madhya Pradesh. It was also stated in the first information report that the first informant and her sister Nitoo Singh were afraid of the accused persons and were constantly receiving threatening telephone calls on account of which they had left their permanent house. It was also stated in the first information report that photo copies of the writings left by her mother are also being sent with the first information report. 4. During investigation statements of number of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. 5. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, passed the impugned order whereby he directed that charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC and 201, IPC be framed against the present revisionist. 6. This order is challenged on the ground that there was no material before the learned Sessions Judge for framing charges and the material collected during investigation has been wrongly inter preted. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, in his order, observed that Km. Vidhi and Ravindra Pratap Singh, daughter and son respectively of accused Mahendra Pratap Singh, have stated in their statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. that on the night of incident Sushma Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh had gone for sleeping to the roof of the house, Asha Singh was also present in the house. In the morning Sushma Singh was found missing. P. C. that on the night of incident Sushma Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh had gone for sleeping to the roof of the house, Asha Singh was also present in the house. In the morning Sushma Singh was found missing. He further observed that Sushma Singh had left writings at her house before com ing to Mahendra Pratap Singh in which she had stated that Asha Singh was calling her through her men and if she did not go there, her children may be killed. The hand-writing of Smt. Sushma Singh was got compared by the hand-writing expert and at the pointing out of one Pahalwan and Asha Singh half burnt bones of the deceased and ashes were recovered. 8. Under Section 127, Cr. P. C. ac cused may be discharged if upon con sideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the ac cused. It is well settled that at this stage the truth and the effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce is not to be meticulously judged. The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges may 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. Probative value of such evidence cannot be considered at that stage as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR, 1996 SC1744, State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa. It has also been held in AIR 1979 SC 366 , Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another 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. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly ex plained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. " 9. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly ex plained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. " 9. In the instant case there are allega tions that Smt. Asha Singh, the present revisionist, had illicit relations with the husband of the deceased, namely, Mahendra Pratap Singh, who is also an accused in the case, that prior to the present incident both, Mahendra Pratap Singh and Asha Singh, attempted to com mit murder of Smt. Sushma Singh regard ing which incident a criminal case was pending in Madhya Pradesh Courts; that while leaving her house and going to the house of Mahendra Pratap Singh the deceased had left writings in which she stated that she was being called by Smt. Asha Singh through her men and in case she did not go, her children may be killed; that on the pointing out of Smt. Asha Singh remnants of the dead-body were recovered. These circumstances were suf ficient to entertain reasonable and grave suspicion that Smt. Asha Singh was also involved in commission of the crime. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the trial Court has taken into consideration statements of Km. Vidhi Singh and Ravindra Pratap Singh to the effect that Smt. Asha Singh was also present in the house in the night when deceased and accused Mahendra Pratap Singh had gone to sleep on the roof of the house. But, no such statement was made by these two witnesses. Copies. of the state ments of these two witnesses have been filed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the affidavit. Even if the said part of the statement relied upon by the Sessions Judge does not find place in the statements of these two wit nesses recorded by the I. O. under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , there is in my view, sufficient material on record to come to the con clusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the present revisionist also. 10. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon decisions in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489 and Sati Kanta Guha and another v. State of West Bengal, 1977 Cri LJ. 1644. 10. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon decisions in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489 and Sati Kanta Guha and another v. State of West Bengal, 1977 Cri LJ. 1644. In the second case which was decided by the Calcutta High Court, it was observed that "for the purpose of framing charge under Section 228, Cr. P. C. the Judge is to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence al leged to have been committed and that on the basis of the said materials there is a reasonable probability or chance 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 no charge can be framed. " Reliance was placed upon the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others AIR 1977 SC 1489 :1977 Cri L. J. 1125. These decisions do not help the learned Counsel for the revisionists in view of the circumstances and material collected during investiga tion stated above. The test for determina tion of prima facie case depends upon facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 11. In my considered opinion the revision has no force. 12. The revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .