JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - 7.8.1998-Heard. 2. 15 out of 19 accused persons in Sessions Case No. 88/96-16/97 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi are the petitioners in this revision. As per order dt 3.10.1997 of the trial Court, charge under Sections 498A/306/34, IPC was framed against the remaining four accused persons and charge for the offence under Sections 186/201/34 was framed against the petitioners. Prior to that, on 20.9.1997 learned trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them. Petitioners then argued that no prima facie case is made out against them from the materials available in the charge-sheet and the case diary. Petitioners, in this revision, challenge legality and correctness of the order dt. 20.9.1997 and consequently the order of framing charge against them in the aforesaid manner. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Kumar, the deceased was the legally married wife of accused B. Appalaswamy. Accused B. Samesh alias Samesh Rao is his elder brother and accused B. Rammurthy and B. Wannama are their parents and the parents-in-law of the deceased. She was tortured and ill-treated for non-fulfilment of dowry demands. Ultimately, on the date of occurrence she committed suicide by burning herself and thereafter all the 19 accused persons (including the petitioners) cremeated the dead body without informing the police or other authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners after reading the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') as well as findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dt. 20.9.1997 argues that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners from the available contradictory and inconsistent statements of the witnesses. He further argues that when the inmates of the occurrence house and the relations of the deceased who were present there did not inform the police, the petitioners being the co-villagers cannot be held liable u/s 186, IPC for not informing the Police before removal of the dead body. 5. At this stage, reference be made to Sections 227 and 228 of the Code which are the two relevant provisions. "227. 5. At this stage, reference be made to Sections 227 and 228 of the Code which are the two relevant provisions. "227. Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused arid, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause, (b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." The above quoted provisions are clear and unambiguous that an accused committed to the Court of Session, may be discharged if it reveals from the case record and the documents submitted therein that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In that connection the trial Court shall hear the defence and the prosecution and shall record reasons in support of his findings. On the other hand, if at the time of such hearing, trial Court forms the opinion that there exists ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, in other words, there exists a prima facie case against the accused and offence or one of the offences is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall frame charge accordingly. So far the above position of law is concerned, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the petitioners. 6. So far the above position of law is concerned, it is not disputed by the learned counsels for the petitioners. 6. As noted above, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that statements of witnesses are not consistent and corroborative in making allegations against the petitioners, hence the above stated discrepancies cut at the root of the credibility of such statements. It must be recorded at this stage that the aforesaid criticism of the statements in the case diary, is neither correct nor substantial. As it appears, witnesses saw the accused persons carrying the dead body. Each of such witnesses have not described the names of all the accused persons. Each of such witnesses have left out some names. That is hardly a ground to reject the prosecution case at the stage of consideration of the evidence at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. The aforesaid and the other similar non-acceptable stand of the petitioners has been properly assessed and rejected by the trial Court in the impugned order. 7. While considering whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not, provisions in Sections 227 and 228 of the Code has to be read together in juxtaposition. Precisely, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has done that in the case at hand. At that stage it is not necessary for the trial Court to find out from the relevant evidence in record about minor contradictions in the statements u/s 161 of the Code. At that stage it is the duty of the trial Court to find out if such evidence prima facie makes out a case against the accused and satisfies the ingredients of the offence alleged or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code or the relevant penal provisions in any other statute. If in arriving at the opinion regarding existence of prima facie cast, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or he has not made a perversal approach to the facts and evidence in record, then the revisional Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court simply because another view of the matter may also be possible. That being the settled position of law in relation to Sections 227 and 228 of the Code and as it appears from the impugned order and the statements of the witnesses that the trial Court has made proper evaluation about existence of a prima facie case against the petitioners, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision is not admitted and dismissed at the stage of admission. 8. Before parting with the case, it may be noted that after receipt of a copy of this order learned trial Judge shall persue the statements in record and hear the accused as well as the prosecution and to consider whether the remaining four accused persons shall not be charged for the offence under Sections 186/201/34, IPC. Final Result : Dismissed