JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura whereby the trial Court has discharged the respondents accused from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Counsel for the petitioner complainant submits that there was specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused assaulted the deceased Dinesh by various weapons and thereby caused him a large number of injuries which resulted into his death. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was caused a fatal head injury and a large number of other injuries on different parts of his body. He submits that the injuries were sufficient to cause death and despite that the learned trial Judge without assigning any reason discharged the accused from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the fact that a charge sheet had been filed against the accused for the said offence. Learned counsel thus prays that the order whereby the accused have been discharged from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. deserves to be quashed and the learned trial Judge be directed to frame the appropriate charge against the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the learned trial Judge has not assigned any reason for discharging the accused from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for which a charge sheet was filed by the police. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the copies of the documents filed along with the charge sheet. 5. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. reads as below:- "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 the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considered that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." 6. From a bare reading of the said provision, it is apparent that before an accused can be discharged from the offence, the learned trial Judge has to record reasons for discharging the accused. In the case at hand the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. amongst other offences. From a bare reading of the said provision, it is apparent that before an accused can be discharged from the offence, the learned trial Judge has to record reasons for discharging the accused. In the case at hand the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. amongst other offences. The learned trial Judge without assigning any reason whatsoever and without even adverting to the material available on record proceeded and discharge the accused from the offence under Section 302 and 341 I.P.C. and has directed framing of charge against them for the lesser offences under Sections 304 I.P.C. and Section 323 I.P.C. The order impugned obviously cannot stand to scrutiny in the light of the mandatory provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C. 7. As has been discussed above, the deceased Dinesh was caused about 6 injuries in the incident out of which one was on the head. The head injury proved fatal as it caused severe damage to the brain and was also accompanied with a communicated fracture. Therefore, there could not have been any justification whatsoever with the learned trial Judge for discharging the accused from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 8. Resultantly the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura is hereby quashed. The learned trial Judge is directed to frame charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and thereafter to try them as per law.Revision allowed. *******