ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 3.10.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 135 of 2012 in S.C. No. 72 of 2012 passed by the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, while passing the order in Crl. M.P. No. 135 of 2012 in S.C. No. 72 of 2012 on 3.10.2012 has among other things observed that ... “But if we look at the complaint given by the defacto Complainant in the background of the wound certificate, there is material available to presume that there was an intention to kill the defacto Complainant, so as to live peacefully and in furtherance, he has also wrongfully restrained in order to attack and due to the attack, the complainant sustained injury” and therefore, has opined that there are materials available before this Court to presume against the accused that he has committed an offence punishable under Sections 307 and 341 IPC and resultantly, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him from the main Sessions Case. 3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that for the offence under Section 307 IPC, even the basic ingredients are not made out against the petitioner/accused and as such Section 307 of IPC is not attracted in so far as the petitioner/accused is concerned. 4. Yet another submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner is that Dr. Vanitha (List of Witness No. 8), who treated the De facto Complainant has not rendered any finding as regards the nature of injury sustained by him in view of the fact that he has absconded from the Hospital and further-more, the injury mentioned in the complaint, does not corroborate with the available medical evidence. 5. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, the act of the petitioner (Accused) could be taken only as sudden provocation because his wife shared bed with the paramour/De facto Complainant and because of the same, he got provoked and attacked. Unfortunately, this vital aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court in proper and real perspective. 6. Unfortunately, this vital aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court in proper and real perspective. 6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused strenuously contends that even as per the statement of the De facto Complainant, the petitioner/accused entered into the house and threw the knife at him and that he narrowly escaped and further, the petitioner/accused waylaid and cut the Complainant with knife on the neck and if the words of the Complainant were taken into account, a simmering doubt that creeps into one’s mind as to whether two knives were involved in the occurrence. 7. That apart, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused projects an argument that the trial Court failed to take into consideration of the fact that the wife of the petitioner/accused, an eye witness and also a root cause for the occurrence was not examined as witness. 8. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial Court failed to consider that the offence under Section 341 IPC was not made out because it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place inside the house of the petitioner and therefore, an unlawful restrained would not arise. However, the Investigation Officer, registered the case under the wrong provisions of law. 9. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused cites the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in K. Neelaveni v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police and Others (2010) 3 MLJ (Crl) 352 (SC) , at page 353, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: “While considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial.” 10. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another AIR 2010 SC 663 , wherein it is held that “At the stage of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 11. Apart from the above, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused invites the attention of this Court to the decision in Chinapayian (1991 Vol.XXXV – 635, wherein it is inter alia held as follows: “Provocation need not be by positive words or action. Mere seeing one’s wife in the intimate company of her paramour will also generate provocation. To see the wife in the company of a paramour at dead of night, even though alleged to have been returning from second show, is sufficient provocation for the husband especially when he has warned his wife not to have any affair with the deceased as such, the injury caused though considered to be grievous in nature since the deceased died 15 days after the incident due to septicaemia, would squarely fall under Section 335 IPC but not under Section 325 IPC and the simple injury caused to P.W.1 would fall under Section 334 IPC.” 12. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to point out that for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, the prosecution is to establish the facts hereunder: (i) That the accused did an act and (ii) That the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder. If hurt is caused by such act, the offender becomes liable to imprisonment for life, otherwise, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed is 10 years. As a matter of fact, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC do not take into account the effect of the act of the accused as a measure of sentence to be fastened upon him. Of course, the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is squarely on the side of the prosecution. Also that the intention or knowledge caused there to be proved in the manner known to law, as opined by this Court. 13. Coming to the ingredients of Section 334 of IPC, one must remember the following essential factors (i) That there was some grave and sudden provocation by the concerned person to the accused; (ii) That the accused on such provocation voluntarily caused hurt to another person; (iii) That while causing such hurt, the accused neither intended nor knew that his act was likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave provocation. Indeed the grave and sudden provocation is to be proved separately. 14. The pith and substance of the argument put forward by the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that on the day of occurrence on 18.3.2012, at about 2 p.m., the petitioner/accused went into his house and saw his wife sharing the bed with the Complainant and that the petitioner/accused on seeing the incident, suddenly got provoked, took the knife and cut the defacto Complainant on his neck and that the Complainant escaped from the scene of occurrence. 15. Drawing the attention of this Court that Dr. Vanitha, who gave treatment to the Complainant was not in a position to find out the nature of injury on the Complainant’s neck because of the fact that the Complainant absconded from the Hospital, after he was admitted as an in-patient. 16. Continuing further, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused brings it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner/Complainant was admitted as an in-patient on 18.3.2011 and later, he absconded himself and further, his whereabouts were not known. 17. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the facts and circumstances, only an offence under Section 334 of IPC is made out, which is triable by the competent Magistrate Court and the said offence is not liable to be tried by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge. 18. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the trial Court on an overall assessment of the records and documents of this case submitted before it came to a categorical conclusion that there were sufficient materials available to frame charge against the accused under Sections 307 and 341 IPC. In fact, the trial Court has framed the charges against the Accused on 8.10.2012. Further, it appears that the main Sessions Case, posted for examination of P.W.1 on 20.11.2012. It is not in dispute that the case has been taken on file as S.C. No. 72 of 2012 by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 19. In fact, the trial Court has framed the charges against the Accused on 8.10.2012. Further, it appears that the main Sessions Case, posted for examination of P.W.1 on 20.11.2012. It is not in dispute that the case has been taken on file as S.C. No. 72 of 2012 by the Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 19. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out that in order to determine whether there is enough ground for proceeding against the accused, a Court of Law indeed has a wider discretion in the exercise of which it can decide the issue whether the materials on record, if unrebutted are such on the basis of which a conviction can be said to be reasonably a possible one. 20. In short, only a prima facie case is to be looked into and whether their case is beyond all reasonable doubt is not to be gone into at the time of framing of charges. Even if a Court of Law comes to an inevitable conclusion that the commission of an offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists, at the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record need not be gone into, as opined by this Court. Further-more, while framing charges, it is not just and necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accusations which they are bringing against the accused are certain to be established against him. Strictly speaking, the object of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., is to see that the Court of Law must be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not a vexatious or frivolous one and further that there is some material for proceeding against him. Also, it is not safe to act on the discrepancies unless there are so overwhelming and fatal so as to affect the case of the prosecution without providing adequate opportunity to it to substantiate the allegations. As a matter of fact, only a prima facie case is to be looked into and a strict standard of proof while evaluating the material to find out whether there is prima facie case against the accused is not to be employed as a yardstick on any count. 21. As a matter of fact, only a prima facie case is to be looked into and a strict standard of proof while evaluating the material to find out whether there is prima facie case against the accused is not to be employed as a yardstick on any count. 21. That apart, the term ‘ground’ in Section 227 of Cr.P.C., does not mean a ground for conviction but certainly it means a ground for putting the accused on trial in the considered opinion of this Court. 22. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions, and bearing in mind of an important fact that at the time of considering the application for discharge, it is the primordial duty of Court of Law to take into account of the allegations made in FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation and applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that there are enough requisite materials available on record for the trial Court to frame charge for the offence under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC. Per contra, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accusation which they have brought against the accused is bound to be brought home against him during the course of trial in the main case. 23. Suffice it for this Court to state that the accusation made against the petitioner/accused in respect of offences under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC are not either vexatious or frivolous. As on date, there are adequate and enough materials are available on the side of the prosecution to proceed against him in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Looking at from any point of view, this Court opines that the order of the trial Court dated 3.10.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 135 of 2012 in S.C. No. 72 of 2012 in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is perfectly valid and legally correct one in the eye of law. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and it fails. 24. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. M.P. No. 135 of 2012 in S.C. No. 72 of 2012 in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is perfectly valid and legally correct one in the eye of law. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and it fails. 24. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner/accused to raise all factual and legal pleas before the trial Court during the conduct of trial in S.C. No. 72 of 2012 which is slated for hearing on 20.11.2012. No costs. Petition dismissed.