ORDER : In this revision application, the sole petitioner Bidhut Paul @ Bapi Paul @ Papi Paul has challenged the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ghatshila in Session Trial No. 102 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected holding that there are sufficient materials on record to presume the involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in commission of murder of the deceased. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in Bahragora (Barbole) P.S. Case no. 29 of 2011 for the offences registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Kavita Paul, wife of the deceased, alleging therein that her husband Chhatra Mohan Paul had land dispute with this petitioner, who happened to be one of the relative of the informant. It is also alleged that a land was allotted to her husband for construction of house under Indira Awas Yojna and when her husband tried to raise pillar on the said land, the accused persons raised objection, whereafter Panchayati was held and on 04.06.2011 in the morning, when her husband had gone to attend the nature of call at about 5.00 a.m., the accused Niranjan Paul and Lala informed her that her husband has hanged himself in the half constructed house of this petitioner and has committed suicide. Upon which, she went to the place of occurrence and found that her husband was lying dead in a suspicious manner and she suspected that her husband has been murdered. It is also alleged that her Gotia Bidhut Paul and Vishwajeet Paul after hatching conspiracy instigated their own father Niranjan Paul, who along with other accused persons have killed her husband. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet whereafter cognizance was taken and the case being sessions triable was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the petition for discharge was filed on behalf of this petitioner and other accused persons under Section 227 of the Code. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet whereafter cognizance was taken and the case being sessions triable was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the petition for discharge was filed on behalf of this petitioner and other accused persons under Section 227 of the Code. The court below after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the State came to the conclusion that there appears to be strong prima facie circumstantial evidence for presuming that the accused persons including this petitioner have committed the offence of murder as has been alleged by the prosecution, hence rejected the prayer of the petitioner. The court below in the impugned order dealt with the submissions of the petitioner and also referred various paragraphs of the case diary before coming to the said conclusion. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground of enmity and circumstances appearing against him though during investigation, the police failed to collect any direct evidence showing his complicity in the crime. It was also submitted that mere statement of one or two witnesses would not mean that the petitioner has participated in the alleged crime. 4. Contrary to the above submissions, the learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the witnesses examined during investigation, as incorporated in different paragraphs of the case diary, have all stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference at this stage when meticulous examination of the evidences available on the record is not permissible. 5. It is not necessary to go into the details of the materials collected during investigation whether or not petitioner has been implicated falsely, may be decided in the trial and cannot be decided at this stage of framing of charge. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 of the code, this Court has to consider only prima facie case or sufficient materials to raise grave suspicion against the petitioner and his complicity in the crime. In Sajjan Kumar Vs. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 of the code, this Court has to consider only prima facie case or sufficient materials to raise grave suspicion against the petitioner and his complicity in the crime. In Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2010) 9 SCC 368 ] while considering the very same provision i.e. framing of charge and discharge of accused under Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the Hon’ble Court in para 19 of the judgment held as follows: “19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.” 6. From the above ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, in that event, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 of the Code, the evidences are not to be weighed and appreciated in the same as is done at the trial. It is also not possible at this stage to make any roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter. The petitioner along with other accused persons is named accused. Even if, I look into the different paragraphs of the case diary and the postmortem report relying upon which, the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge, I find that there is sufficient materials against the petitioner to frame charge against him. On perusal of the different paragraphs of the case diary, it appears that the witnesses examined during investigation, as incorporated in paragraphs 8 and 16 to 23 of the case diary, have all stated about the involvement of this petitioner and other accused persons in the alleged crime. On perusal of the different paragraphs of the case diary, it appears that the witnesses examined during investigation, as incorporated in paragraphs 8 and 16 to 23 of the case diary, have all stated about the involvement of this petitioner and other accused persons in the alleged crime. It further appears from the postmortem report, as incorporated in paragraph 43 of the case diary, that the doctor, who had conducted autopsy of the dead body, had found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. 7. In view of the authoritative pronouncements and principles laid down in the above case, the Court has only to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the strong suspicion and the materials produced before the Court along with charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code. This Court under revisional jurisdiction is dealing with the limited aspect of the issue of being charged or being discharged, I am purposely and deliberately steering of making any positive assertions or even referring to certain aspect of the matters lest, any observations made by me, may prejudice the case. Whatever indirect observations I have made in course of this order are relatable only to the aforesaid limited aspect of interfering with the order impugned. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the legal position stated above, I see no good reason to interfere in the order impugned. Hence, the revision application is dismissed.