ORDER : Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 30th June, 2014 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar whereby Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 2012 filed by the State has been allowed, order dated 28th December, 2011 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shopian, set aside and the matter remitted back to him for a fresh order in accordance with law. 3. The appellant is charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Ranbir Penal Code 1989 read with Sections 7 and 27 of the Arms Act. A charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency before the jurisdictional court at Shopian eventually led to an order of discharge passed by the said court on 28th December, 2011. The trial court took the view that the prosecution had failed to assemble any evidence to justify framing of any charge against the appellant. The court referred to the statement of constable Gurjeet Singh alias Gurmeet Singh to hold that the same was not sufficient even to raise a grave suspicion for framing of charge against the appellant. The trial court in that view held the allegation against the appellant to be groundless and accordingly discharged him. 4. In a revision petition filed against the said order, the High Court has by the order impugned set aside the discharge primarily on the ground that the trial court had not applied its mind to the evidence available on record. The High Court, however, did not refer to the evidence which was in its opinion suggestive of the involvement of the appellant or which had been ignored by the trial court. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, assails the correctness of the said order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the order passed by the trial court and that passed by the High Court in revision. The prosecution has in the course of investigation recorded the statements of as many as 19 witnesses, most of whom happen to be police officials. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the order passed by the trial court and that passed by the High Court in revision. The prosecution has in the course of investigation recorded the statements of as many as 19 witnesses, most of whom happen to be police officials. Statements of most of these witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. including that of constable Gurjeet Singh who was at the relevant point of time posted in the Imam Shah Camp where the appellant is alleged to have hurled a grenade killing two constables and injuring some others. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the depositions of the witnesses recorded in the course of investigation and in particular the statement of constable Gurjeet Singh who has in his statement deposed that he was on duty at around 3.30 p.m. on 21st July, 2009 when someone from outside hurled a grenade injuring S.I. Sethi Ram in the incident who later on succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. According to this witness he had from a long distance seen the person, who hurled the grenade, running towards an orchard. The person was of short height and slim. The witness has stopped short of identifying the appellant as the person who had hurled the grenade and was seen running after the incident. He further deposed that since one Zeenat-Ul-Islam, of banned organisation Albadar, was an active militant operating in the area it was suspected that he had hurled the grenade. The depositions of other witnesses like S.I. Abdul Khaliq, constable Bakshi Ahmad, constable Abdul Majid, constable Javid Ahmad Shah, constable Sudershan Kumar and constable Abdul Rehman are only to the effect that Zeenat-Ul-Islam was active in the area as a militant. None of these witnesses except constable Gurjeet Singh has seen the assailant who hurled the bomb inside the police camp. All what these witnesses deposed is that investigation conducted after the incident revealed that one militant by the name Zeenat-Ul-Islam was active in the area who was responsible for the incident. None of these witnesses is himself a witness to the appellant throwing the grenade resulting in the killing of two police personnel inside the police camp. All what these witnesses deposed is that investigation conducted after the incident revealed that one militant by the name Zeenat-Ul-Islam was active in the area who was responsible for the incident. None of these witnesses is himself a witness to the appellant throwing the grenade resulting in the killing of two police personnel inside the police camp. The witnesses simply claim that subsequent investigation revealed that it was the handiwork of Zeenat-Ul-Islam but the basis on which that charge is made against the appellant has not been disclosed leave alone any witness examined to prove that it was the appellant who was responsible for hurling the grenade inside the camp. in the totality of the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence much less any cogent evidence connecting the appellant with the incident, the Sessions Judge was, in our opinion, justified in holding that no case for framing of a charge against the appellant had been made out. The High Court, in our view, fell in error in reversing the order passed by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the order did not disclose due and proper application of mind. The Sessions Judge had correctly approached the matter and rightly held that deposition of constable Gurjeet Singh could at best give rise to some sort of suspicion against the appellant but the same was not a strong enough basis for framing of a charge in the circumstances, we find it difficult to support the view taken by the High Court. 6. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and that passed by the Sessions Judge restored.