JUDGMENT : M.D. Shah, J. Criminal Revision Application No. 475 of 2007 has been filed by the original complainant while Criminal Revision Application No. 571 of 2007 has been filed by the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 220 of 2006 whereby the respondent-original accused No. 3 was discharged from the charges levelled against him. 2. As both the revisions arise out of the same order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 220 of 2006, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Bharatbhai Nemabhai Patel, a resident of Village Bamroli, Tal. Choryasi, District Surat, lodged a complaint while in Mahavir Hospital before the Police Inspector, Pandesara Police Station, on 6-9-2006 at about 21:45 hours for the incident alleged to have taken place on 6-9-2006 at about 19:30 hours inter alia alleging that his father Nemabhai Bhanabhai Patel was earlier Sarpanch of the Village Bamroli and Chhimmubhai Gopalbhai always used to stand on opposite side in election and, therefore, there existed enmity between the groups of Nemabhai and Chhimubhai. The present respondent-original accused No. 3, Mukeshbhai Chhimubhai Patel is the son of said Chhimubhai Gopalbhai. It was further alleged that on the day of incident, there was a procession in connection with the celebration of Ganapati Visarjan going on and when the said procession was passing near Navi Vasahat (New Quarters) at about 3.30 p.m., as the original accused No. 1-Harishbhai Dhansukhbhai and original accused No. 2-Jitendra @ Jitu Kanchanbhai were dancing in an indecent manner, the complainant and his nephew Sanjaybhai Hasmukhbhai quarrelled with them. After the celebration was over, at about 7.45 p.m. when he reached home, he received telephone from his brother-in-law Sanjaybhai Bhanabhai informing that when his nephew Sanjaybhai, who was going for taking workers at about 7.30 p.m., was passing on the road near Sai Cinema, original accused No. 1-Harishbhai Dhansukhbhai and original accused No. 2-Jitendra @ Jitu Kanchanbhai intercepted Sanjaybhai Mansukhbhai Patel and accused Jitendra Kanchanbhai Patel caught-hold of him while accused Harishbhai Dhansukhbhai Patel gave multiple blows of knife on his vital part of chest and ran away. It was also informed that Sanjaybhai Bhanabhai along with a worker Ramrup Ramgopal Kevat had proceeded towards Mahavir Hospital in a rickshaw for treatment. The complainant Bharatbhai Nemabhai Patel also proceeded towards the hospital and when they reached near the hospital of Dr. Sanjaybhai, he met Ramrup Ramgopal Kevat and his brother-in-law Sanjaybhai Bhanabhai, who were going in rickshaw and they all along with injured Sanjaybhai Hasmukhbhai went to Mahavir Hospital. During the treatment, doctor declared him dead. It was further alleged that because of previous enmity between the groups of Chhimubhai Gopalbhai Patel and complainant, the accused No. 3-Mukesh Chhimubhai Patel through accused Harishbhai Dhansukhbhai and accused Jitendra Kanchanbhai got killed the deceased Sanjaybhai Hasmukhbhai. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, P.I., Pandesara Police Station, registered the offence, collected the evidence of mobile prints of the mobile number of accused-Mukeshbhai and other accused persons and arrested the accused. At the end of investigation, as there appeared some prima facie case against the accused, charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court and case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 220 of 2006 which was made available to the learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Surat, for trial. 5. During the trial, the present respondent-original accused No. 3 Mukeshbhai submitted an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him from the charges levelled against him. 6. During the hearing, it was contended by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No. 3 that when the first incident of original accused Harishbhai and Jitendrabhai took place at about 3.30 p.m. with the complainant, the original accused No. 3 was not present. Thereafter, at the time of second incident which took place in the evening of the same day at about 7.30 also, he was not present and hence, he cannot be said to have been directly involved in the crime in question. It was also contended that the election took place before long and in past also, no untoward incident took place though person of group of accused was always defeated and therefore also, this reason was given only to falsely involve the accused No. 3 with serious crime. It was also contended that nothing is mentioned in the FIR regarding the role played by the original accused but only his name was mentioned. It was also contended that nothing is mentioned in the FIR regarding the role played by the original accused but only his name was mentioned. Further, nothing is coming out from the statements of witnesses recorded on 7-10-2006 and 8-10-2006 connecting the accused No. 3 with the crime. Name of the accused No. 3 was disclosed for the first time on 9-10-2006 in the statement of a relative of the deceased regarding the enmity in election between both the parties. However, no explanation has been given either by the witness or by the investigating officer for recording the statement of said witness after three days of the incident. It was further contended that prima facie ingredients of Section 120-B is not attracted as this incident took place suddenly during the procession of Ganesh Visarjan. It was also further contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that there was pre-plan and meeting of minds among the accused for committing the crime as this incident took place all of a sudden. Only because telephonic communication took place between the accused No. 3 with other accused persons, the original accused No. 3 cannot be connected with the crime. 7. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the court below allowed the said application whereby the original accused No. 3 was discharged from the charges levelled against him. It was held by the Sessions Court that there existed political rivalry since long and hence, the original accused No. 3 has been falsely involved in the crime. When it was asked by the Court below to the investigating officer in open Court regarding the evidence against the present respondent accused, it was replied by the I.O. that except the mobile prints regarding the conversations that took place between the original accused No. 3 with other accused over phone, no other evidence exists. It was therefore held by the court below that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused No. 3 with the crime and hence, passed the impugned order giving rise to the present revisions, one by the original complainant and the other by the State. 8. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A.D.Shah for the original complainant, learned APP, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for the State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.M. Thakkar for the original accused No. 3. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. 8. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A.D.Shah for the original complainant, learned APP, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for the State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.M. Thakkar for the original accused No. 3. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. A.D. Shah, has submitted that as many as 21 blows were caused with knife on the chest of deceased, who was passing on the road alone and unarmed. There are ample evidence of mobile prints clearly showing that before, during and after the incident, long conversations took place between the original accused No. 3 and other accused. It is also argued that to prove the charge of conspiracy, no direct evidence would be available but once the evidence is over, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, Court can come to the conclusion that as a part of conspiracy, whether the original accused No. 3 is involved in the crime or not. Mr. Shah has relied on 2009 Cr.L.R.(SC) page 6 in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary as well as on AIR 2009 Supreme Court page 1013 in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar 10. Learned APP for the State, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, has submitted that there is prima facie material on record to connect the accused No. 3 with the crime and hence, trial court has committed error in allowing the application at the stage of framing of charge. She has further submitted that at the time of deciding the discharge application, the trial court has only to consider whether any grave suspicion is there or not to initiate the criminal proceedings against the accused and it is not required to consider question of conviction or acquittal. It is therefore urged that the impugned order of discharge of accused No. 3 be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.M.Thakkar for the original accused No. 3, has submitted that in revision, this Court has limited power to interfere with the findings of the court below and only if illegality or perversity as having committed by the court below has been noticed, then only the findings can be interfered with. If it was found by the court below after taking into consideration the material on record that there is no sufficient material on record to connect the accused with the crime, then also this Court has limited power to interfere with the said findings. If it was found by the court below after taking into consideration the material on record that there is no sufficient material on record to connect the accused with the crime, then also this Court has limited power to interfere with the said findings. He has also submitted that the mobile prints (evidence of duration of talks) showing the conversation having taken place between other accused and the accused No. 3 are not sufficient to connect the accused No. 3 with the crime. Except this, nothing has come on record which directly connect the accused No. 3 with the crime. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order of discharge may not be interfered with by this Court. Placing reliance on the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu reported in (2005)11 S.C.C. p. 600, it is submitted that facts of accused Gilani in the said reported case are identical to the case of the present respondent-accused No. 3. He has also relied on following reported cases: (1) 2008(2) GLH 596 (SC) para 15 in the case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra. (2) 2002(2) SCC page 135 para 12 in the case of Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra. (3) 2002(1) GLR page 690 para 6 in the case of Ibrahim v. State of Gujarat. (4) 1979(3) SCC page 4 para 10 in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal. (5) 1977(4) SCC 34 para 15 in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh. (6) 1977(2) SCC 699 paras 10 and 11 in the case of State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy. 12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Thakkar has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the evidence of telephonic talks which took place among the accused persons is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. He has further submitted that in this case also, except the evidence of telephonic talks (mobile prints), nothing has come on record which directly connect the accused with the crime. 13. This Court has gone through the papers of charge sheet as well as the police papers including the case dairy. This Court has also gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 13. This Court has gone through the papers of charge sheet as well as the police papers including the case dairy. This Court has also gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. There cannot be any dispute regarding the principles laid down by the Apex Court in those reported judgments. Keeping in mind the principles laid down therein, I proceed further. 14. It appears from the papers of investigation and charge sheet that there was enmity between the groups of Chhimmubhai (father of accused No. 3) and group of family of deceased. It also appears that the original accused No. 3 has very good relation with other accused and frequently they used to gather. The other accused are strong supporters of accused No. 3 in election and in election, wife of original accused No. 3 was defeated by the member of the family of the deceased. At this stage, the only presumption that can be drawn from the duration of talks took place immediately before happening of the incident and after the incident on mobile phone between other accused with accused No. 3 would be that the accused No. 3 was in constant touch with other accused persons. 15. It is a matter of great surprise that the trial court, during the hearing of discharge application in open Court, directly asked the investigating officer as to whether there is any evidence against the original accused No. 3 or not and it was replied by the Investigating Officer that except the mobile prints, no other evidence exists. This is not a healthy practise adopted by the court below which is highly deprecated. 16. It is a settled legal position that the trial court, in an application for discharge, after going through the evidence on record, should come to the conclusion as to whether there is prima facie material to connect the accused with the crime or not. The Court is not required to go deep into the details of the papers of charge sheet or materials on record but has only to satisfy whether there is a grave suspicion showing the prima facie involvement of the accused in the crime or not and if the answer is affirmative, the Court ought to have framed charge against the said accused. 17. 17. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was lodged in the hospital itself immediately after the incident naming Bharatbhai Nemabhai Patel as accused and thereupon investigation was started. While disclosing the names of the accused in the FIR, the complainant might not be knowing about the telephonic talks that took place between the original accused No. 3 and the other accused. The evidence of mobile prints speaks volume about the prima facie involvement of the original accused No. 3 and which raises a grave suspicion against the original accused No. 3 for initiating proceedings for framing of charge. 18. In view of the above, in the opinion of this court, facts of the case on hand and the facts of the case of Navjod Sandhu (supra) are totally different. In the case of Navjod Sandhu(supra), other accused and accused Gilani belonged to the same Village and studied together and there was no connection between them thereafter. However, after a long lapse of time, when other accused came to the City, conversation took place by them with Mr. S.A.R.Gilani over phone. It was therefore held by the Apex Court that said conversation would not be sufficient to connect the accused-Mr. Gilani with the crime and hence, he was given the benefit. 19. On going through the papers of case dairy, investigation and relevant materials of charge sheet, since it was found during the interrogation and investigation that the original accused No. 3 is connected with the crime, the evidence of mobile print was collected by the investigating agency which prima facie shows the involvement of the original accused No. 3. In view of the above, the accused No. 3 would not be entitled to the benefit of decision rendered in Navjod Sandhu(supra). Moreover, the said judgment has been delivered after a full-fledged trial whereas in the present case, the trial is yet to take place. 20. I am aware that this Court has limited power to interfere with the findings arrived at by the court below. However, when the said findings appear to be perverse or illegal, then it can be interfered with. 20. I am aware that this Court has limited power to interfere with the findings arrived at by the court below. However, when the said findings appear to be perverse or illegal, then it can be interfered with. It appears from the impugned order that the trial court, on hypothetical ground, has discharged the accused by holding that though the deceased was on death bed, the complainant has narrated in the complaint that the assault committed on the deceased was due to political rivalry in election, which no prudent man would have done. The charge of conspiracy can be proved at the end of trial. There may not be any direct evidence regarding conspiracy having been hatched by the accused in committing the crime. However, it is not necessary that at the time of actual incident, accused (alleged conspirators) has to be present at the place of incident. What is required to be considered by the court at this stage is as to whether any prima facie material involving the accused exists for framing of charge or not. 21. As stated above, in this case, at first instance, immediately when complaint was lodged, names of accused including the accused No. 3 were disclosed which is totally corroborated with the proof of mobile prints connecting the accused prima facie with the crime which is sufficient to frame charge against the original accused No. 3. If the complainant had intended to involve falsely the accused No. 3 with the crime, he could have given the name of any other member of the family of the accused but specific name of accused No. 3 was given in the complaint along with other accused. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has committed a grave error in holding that except the mobile prints, there is no other material to connect the accused with the crime and hence, the findings arrived at by the trial court are required to be interfered with. 22. Reliance is placed in Sanghi Brothers (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 as under: "The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. 22. Reliance is placed in Sanghi Brothers (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 as under: "The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside." 23. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned order being illegal and improper requires to be quashed and set aside and both the revisions deserve to be allowed. 24. In view of the above, both the revisions are hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 220 of 2006 discharging the accused is hereby quashed and set aside. The original accused No. 3 is directed to surrender before the jail authorities within fifteen days from today. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the Sessions Case and complete it as early as possible as the accused are in jail. Rule is made absolute in each revision. 25. Since the aforesaid observations have been made only for deciding the present revision applications, they may not in any way prejudice the parties in trial. 26. Office is directed to send the record and proceedings to the trial court forthwith. 27. Office is also directed to place a copy of this judgment in each revision. Appeals allowed.