JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. By consent called out for final hearing. 3. Considering the nature of the orders assailed, calling of the record and proceeding is dispensed with. 4. Both the applications in revision are respectively preferred by original accused no.3 and original accused no.4 in sessions case pending on the file of the Sessions Court, Amravati against the common order dated 26th March, 2013 rejecting the applications for discharge made by them from the allegations of having committed offences under Sections 307 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. The said applicants along with two more known accused and other unknown accused are charge sheeted by Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati as a result of the investigation of Crime No. 436 of 1997 registered with the said Police upon first information report lodged by one Jitendra singh s/o Rajendra singh regarding the incident which had occurred on 7th December, 1997 at 2300 hours in which he is alleged to have been assaulted by members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as knives etc. in prosecution of common object of the said unlawful assembly to assault and to commit his murder him. 5. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the applicants by separate applications applied to the Court of Session for discharging them under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the material collected during the investigation failing to show their involvement in the offences for which they were charge sheeted. It is submitted that each of the said applicant alternatively prayed for discharging him at least from the allegation of having committed the offence under Section 149 read with 307 of I.P.C. 6. Mr. Mardikar urged that question of discharge and/or framing of charge in any sessions case are an important stages as it practically decides discontinuing or continuing the prosecution of the concerned accused for the offences for which he is charged. It is urged that prayer for discharging from the accusation of the offences for which the applicants were charge sheeted could have been negatived only in the event of their involvement in commission of such offences was prima facie borne out from the material collected during investigation. It is urged that prayer for discharging from the accusation of the offences for which the applicants were charge sheeted could have been negatived only in the event of their involvement in commission of such offences was prima facie borne out from the material collected during investigation. It is submitted that while considering an application for discharge, it was incumbent upon the Court of Sessions to ascertain whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against each of the said applicant for having committed the offences as alleged against them in the charge sheet submitted. 7. Mr. Mardikar submitted that though the applicants have prayed for discharging them from the accusation of commission of all the offences for which they were charge sheeted, he is pressing the present revision applications only to the extent of considering the said prayer qua the allegations of having committed the offence under Section 149 read with Section 307 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel by meticulously taking through the order of rejecting the application for discharge urged that said order reveals that the Court of Session has mainly taken into consideration only two factors i.e. there were stab injuries on the buttock of the victim. Mr. Mardikar contended that the entire order does not reveal any material collected during the course of investigation revealing the victim having sustained any other injury other than the injuries on buttock. It is submitted that the order fails to depict any opinion of medical expert/Doctor was obtained prima facie leading to the conclusion that the injuries which were sustained by the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death in the event of not being immediately treated. The learned counsel urged that apart from it, the careful consideration of the matters stated in the order, reveals that it miserably fails to depict any basis on which the trial Court came to the conclusion that the involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. is borne from it. It is submitted that thus the order passed by the trial Court fails to denote/refer the material which prima facie shows involvement of the applicants in commission of such offences. It is submitted that thus the order passed by the trial Court fails to denote/refer the material which prima facie shows involvement of the applicants in commission of such offences. It was urged that without depicting such material in the order and the same warranting not discharging them from the allegations of commission of such offences, their prayer for discharge at least from the allegations of having committed the offence under Section 149 read with Section 307 of I.P.C. could not have been negatived. 8. It is urged that considering the order passed in entirety, exhibits non-application of mind regarding vital aspects connected with question of discharge sought. It is urged that such an inference is inevitable as it fails to depict material warranting framing of charge for such an offence or warranting rejection of the prayer for discharge made. It is thus contended that the application in revision be allowed and the orders passed not in accordance with material on record be quashed and set aside and the applicants be discharged from the allegations of having committed offence under Section 149 read with Section 307 of I.P.C. 9. Mr. Patel, learned APP though fairly conceded about position regarding the material from the charge sheet referred in order being pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, urged that merely on the said count the applicants cannot be discharged from the allegations of having committed the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The learned APP submitted that in such state of affairs though the order passed on the applications for discharge though deserves to be quashed and set aside, the matter would be required to be relegated back to the Court of Session to pass the reasoned order regarding the request for discharge made by the applicant. 10. After giving thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced and the perusal of the order assailed by making the present revision applications, there appears substance in submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants. The perusal of the order reveals that the prayer for discharge is rejected mainly only on the basis of the material in the shape of victim having sustained stab injuries on buttock. The perusal of the order reveals that the prayer for discharge is rejected mainly only on the basis of the material in the shape of victim having sustained stab injuries on buttock. The order does not give clue about the material, if any, in the charge sheet prima facie revealing either the intent of the applicants in committing the murder of victim or themselves sharing a common object of committing his murder. In the said premises, it is difficult to accept that the prayer for discharge was considered in right perspective by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus rejection of such a prayer cannot be legally sustained. 11. Hence the order impugned in the petition rejecting the request for discharge is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Court of Session to decide the said applications in accordance with the law by recording reasons qua material in charge sheet against the applicants. The Court of Session shall decide the said applications as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 90 days from the receipt of this order. 12. Revision applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.