JUDGMENT (1) POLICE Station Bus Stand, Jammu on 15th November, 2008 presented a charge-sheet against the respondents in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 RPC against the accused/respondents. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 15th November, 2008 itself. Ld. Sessions Judge Jammu on going through charge-sheet as also material submitted therewith and after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the accused, vide order dated 30th June, 2009 arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence punishable under Section 302 RPC was not made out against the respondents/accused and that there was ground for presuming that the respondent/accused committed offences punishable under Section 304-11/34 RPC. Ld. Trial Judge proceeded to formally charge respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-11/34 RPC. The accused/respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The trial, however, could not take off as immediately after respondent/accused were on 9-7-2009 charged of the said offence, widow, brother and mother of the deceased filed instant petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. read with Section 439 Cr. P. C. throwing challenge to the order dated 30th June 2009 whereby the Trial Judge has in effect discharged the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 RPC. (2) THE petitioners' case is that the material collected during investigation does disclose commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 RPC by the respondents/accused and that discharge of the offence is uncalled and unjustified. It is urged that there was no reason for Ld. Trial Judge to conclude that, no sufficient ground existed for proceeding against the respondents accused under Section 302-11/34 RPC. It is averred that Ld. Trial Judge has committed a grave error on law by sifting and weighing the evidence at the threshold stage and that the order dated 30-6-2009 was liable to be quashed and the respondents/accused directed to be charged for the offence punishable under Section 302-11/34 RPC. I have gone through the petition as also trial Court record. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. I have gone through the petition as also trial Court record. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. Before dilating on grounds urged in the petition it would be appropriate to have brief overview of the facts of the case, the background in which the case FIR No. 69/2008 dated 24-9-2008 came to be registered at Police Station Bus Stand Jammu and the material collected during investigation and placed before the Ld. Trial Judge with the charge-sheet. (3) ON 15th June, 2008 information from a reliable source was received by Police Station Bus Stand that an unidentified dead body was lying near IN gate of General Bus Stand, Jammu and that death appeared to have occurred in suspicious circumstances. The information prompted P/S Bus Stand to initiate enquiry under Section 174 Cr. P. C. The enquiry was entrusted to Dina Nath ASI P/S Bus Stand. The dead body was later identified as that of Jagtar Singh S/o Sucha Singh R/o Jiwanwal, Gurdaspur, Punjab. Post mortem examination of the dead body was got conducted which revealed that death had occurred due to violence and injuries. The inquiry further revealed that in the night intervening 14-15 June 2008 at about 1.30 a.m, the deceased was beaten up by the respondent/accused who run a hotel under name and style of Hamdard Hotel at General Bus Stand, Jammu, and that once the deceased became unconscious due to thrashing given by the respondents/accused, they picked up the deceased and threw him from stairs of the Bus Stand resulting in his death. The results of the enquiry lead to registration of case FIR No. 69/2008 dated 24-9-2008 under Section 304/34 at P. S. Bus Stand, Jammu. The investigation was taken over by Bishaish Kumar SHO P/S Bus Stand, Jammu. The Investigating Officer got statements of all those acquainted with the case recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. before a Judicial Magistrate at Jammu. (4) ON strength of the material collected during investigation the Investigating Officer found the accused/respondents to have in furtherance of common intention, committed offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and accordingly presented the charge- sheet against them in the competent Court. Ld. P. C. before a Judicial Magistrate at Jammu. (4) ON strength of the material collected during investigation the Investigating Officer found the accused/respondents to have in furtherance of common intention, committed offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and accordingly presented the charge- sheet against them in the competent Court. Ld. Trial Judge after making reference to law laid down in 1997 SCC (Cri) 584 : (AIR 1997 SC 2041 : 1997 Cri LJ 2248) and 2008 AIR SCW 1735 : (2008 Cri LJ 2048 : AIR 2008 SC 1571) and opining that at the stage of framing charge against the accused, Court has to see whether prima facie a case is made out against the accused or not and that the Court is not required to undertake elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material, held "that prima facie a case under Section 302 RPC is not made out against the accused" and "that there is ground for presuming that accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 304- II/34 RPC and as such accused persons deserved to be charged under Section 304-II/34 RPC". Ld. Trial Court has not spelt out reasons that prompted it to arrive at said conclusion, though the Court made an elaborate reference to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the respondents/accused. It appears that postmortem report, a detailed reference to which was made during the course of arguments by Ld. Counsel for respondents/accused, weighed with Ld. Trial Judge while ordering discharge of the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and framing of charge under Section 304-11734 RPC. Ld. Trial Judge while reproducing the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused, made a pointed reference to postmortem report as under: "The postmortem report shows that all the injuries, which were found on the dead body of the deceased, were multiple bruises except injury No.2. Injury No. 2 shows that both bones of left forearm were fractured. Further more as regards with the opinion of the concerned doctor, Dr. Injury No. 2 shows that both bones of left forearm were fractured. Further more as regards with the opinion of the concerned doctor, Dr. P.D. Bhagat has opined that no definite opinion regarding the death in this case can be given on the basis of the postmortem examination and laboratory report." The Court proceeded to observe : "........The report of the postmortem no where suggest that lethal weapon has been used, nor any vital part of the deceased was injured/damaged and all the injuries observed on the body of the deceased were bruises. Had there been any motive or any intention to kill the deceased a lethal weapon could have been used for the commission of the offence". (5) IN a Sessions trial, the Trial Court, if upon the consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the accused/respondent is to be discharged. The Trial Court, however, is to record reasons for doing so. If, however, upon consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Trial Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence exclusively triable by the Court, a formal charge in writing is to be framed against the accused. (6) IT is well settled law that the trial Court at the threshold is not to delve deep into different aspects of the case, sift and weigh the material so as to opine whether the available material is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged in the charge- sheet. The Court has not to look for a ground for conviction but a ground for putting the accused on trial. The trial Court at the stage of framing charge against the accused is required to assess and evaluate the material on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging from such material taken at their face value, disclose existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused. The trial Court at the stage of framing charge against the accused is required to assess and evaluate the material on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging from such material taken at their face value, disclose existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused. IT has been, however, held that the Court for said limited purpose may proceed to sift such material as the Court even at initial stage, could not be expected to accept the prosecution version even where it runs against the common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The base line, however, remains that the Court has to make whatever analysis and dissection is permissible of all the material, that is placed before the Court by the prosecution with the charge- sheet. The Trial Court cannot selectively sift such material and rush to a conclusion without going through rest of the material relied upon and intended to be pressed into service by the prosecution as the trial proceeds. In the present case the prosecution proposed to prove its case against the respondents/accused inter alia on the strength of statements of two main prosection witnesses Prabu Singh S/o Seni Singh R/o Viewly Tehsil Bishnah and Parveen Singh S/o Vishnoo Pratap Singh R/o Prithvi Pora, Bishna claimed to be witnesses to the occurrence and to have seen the accused/respondents beating the person with lathis at 1:30 AM in the intervening night of 15/16 June 2008 and that next morning dead body of deceased was recovered from Bus Stand, Jammu. The prosecution also proposed to place reliance on statement of S. Surinder Singh S/o Mool Raj R/o Poora Bala, Doda who according to the prosecution disclosed during investigation that witness at 1.30 A.M. in the night of occurrence saw the respondents/accused, beating the deceased with lathis and that the respondents accused suspecting the victim to have died, picked up the deceased and threw him down from the stairs where the passengers load their luggage on the bus stop. The prosecution also intended to place reliance on disclosure memos, attributed to the accused, the recoveries made pursuant to such disclosure memos wherein such recovery was recorded. Ld. The prosecution also intended to place reliance on disclosure memos, attributed to the accused, the recoveries made pursuant to such disclosure memos wherein such recovery was recorded. Ld. Trial Judge while opining that there was no sufficient case to conclude that commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC was made out against the respondents/accused, has not even made a passing reference to the said material available on the file as also the opinion of Dr. P.D. Bhagat, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Government Medical College, Jammu in reply to query received on 18-9-2008. Ld. Trial Judge has instead placed exclusive reliance on postmortem report and drawn conclusions as regards intention and motive attributed to the respondents/accused from the injuries found on person of the deceased as recorded in the postmortem report. Ld. Trial Judge while taking notice of fracture of both the bones of left forearm has in the later part of the impugned order rushed to conclude that ".......all the injuries observed on the body of the deceased were bruises". Ld. Trial Judge has excluded the presence of any motive or intention to kill the deceased, only because in the opinion of Ld. Trial Judge, had there been such motive or intention, a lethal weapon could have been used in commission of the offence. The reasons given by the Ld. Trial Judge and the conclusions based on such reasons are erroneous and arrived at oblivious to salient features of the prosecution case and the material left untouched by Ld. Trial Judge. Ld. Trial Judge thus has not only made selective perusal of the material and documents placed by the prosecution with the charge-sheet, completely ignored the direct evidence proposed to be pressed into service by the prosecution during the trial but drawn conclusion erroneously from the facts when it is not possible to rush to such conclusions at the threshold stage. (7) FOR the reasons discussed, the order impugned in the petition is not in conformity with law, suffers from illegality and amounts abused process of the Court. (8) THE order is accordingly quashed and Ld. Trial Judge directed to consider record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, afresh and pass orders in accordance with the law. (7) FOR the reasons discussed, the order impugned in the petition is not in conformity with law, suffers from illegality and amounts abused process of the Court. (8) THE order is accordingly quashed and Ld. Trial Judge directed to consider record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, afresh and pass orders in accordance with the law. THE Trial Court expected to be alive to the fact that case has not proceeded at a desired pace, shall take all steps to pass the necessary order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the record. Respondent No. 1 who has been granted interim bail on 21-6-2010 extended from time to time shall surrender before the Trial Court on 23- 12-2010 on which date main case shall come up for hearing before the Trial Court, and the interim bail shall cease to be in force w.e.f. said date. THE respondents/accused shall be free to make a fresh bail application before the trial Court on or after the said date and the trial Court shall be at liberty to pass orders warranted under law, of course, after providing prosecution an opportunity to file its response to such fresh bail application. THE parties to remain present before the Trial Court on 23-12-2010. Allowed. Record be sent down. Petition allowed.