JUDGMENT AND ORDER : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the petitioner State. Also heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused respondent No. 1. Lalfakawma and Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the accused respondent No. 2. Lalrindika. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 19.04.2014, the informant H. Vanlalbiaa lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Khawzawl Police Station, Mizoram stating that on the said date around 06:00 pm, his grand-son Ronald Lalrinpuia, aged about 24 years was found dead, lying on his bed, in his rented house with injuries on his back side and that it appears some culprit had murdered him and therefore requested the authority to take necessary action. Accordingly, Khawzawl P.S Case No. 29/2014 under Section 302 IPC was registered. 3. During the course of investigation, the concerned Investigation Officer visited the place of occurrence, made inquest with the authority concerned in presence of the witnesses, send dead body of the deceased for its postmortem examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses acquainted to the facts of case, seized one blood stained hammer, one blood stained pillow with its pillow case, one blood stained bed-sheet, one Nokia cell phone set and one syringe in presence of the seizure witnesses. 4. It is seen that during his visit to the place of occurrence and during inquest, the concerned Investigating Officer found the deceased person with pool of blood under pillow and the wall near the head of the deceased had blood stains and further found two deep injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased where-from whole lot of larva were coming out. On obtaining the postmortem report and the call detail reports (CDR) of the mobile handset of the deceased and on obtaining sufficient evidence, arrested both the accused persons and on completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the accused respondents and with due permission on prayer added Section 392 & 34 and filed the charge sheet in the said Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 29/2014 on 16.11.2014 against both the accused persons under Section 302/392/34 IPC. 5. 5. The Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl after going through the charge sheet of the case, considering the submission of the counsels for the accused persons came to a finding that death of the deceased cannot be caused by two different persons at different times with a single hammer and he could not find any material to connect the murder of the deceased with the available evidence on record collected by the Investigating officer in the case and found no ground to proceed with the case and accordingly vide his order dated 24.08.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 289/2015 arising out of Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 29/2014 discharged both the accused respondents from the liability of the charges under Sections 302/392/34 of Indian penal Code. 6. Being aggrieved with the said discharge of the accused persons by the learned Trial Court vide his order dated 24.08.2015, the State of Mizoram, the prosecution have preferred this Revision Petition under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for setting aside the impugned discharge order dated 24.08.2015 and to pass necessary order with a direction to frame charges against the respondent accused persons on the basis of the charge sheet of the case filed by the Investigating Officer dated 26.11.2014. 7. Section 227 of the CrPC relates with discharge and Section 228 of the said code relates to framing of charge pertaining to warrant cases and it read as follows: 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 considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge. 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 considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of charge. (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class on such date as he deems fit and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 8. Section 302 IPC relates to punishment for murder and it reads as – "302. Punishment for murder. – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Section 392 IPC relates to punishment for robbery and it reads as – "392. Punishment for robbery – Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years." 10. Section 34 IPC prescribes for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and reads as – "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 IPC prescribes for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and reads as – "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 11. From the Postmortem report of the deceased enclosed with the charge sheet of the case, it is seen that there were two injuries on the skull due fracture of his head and the fracture of the occipital bone is of about 3 x 4 x 4 cm of size with forehead fragments seen embedded in the brain matter. In his said report, the autopsy doctor opined that cause of death of the deceased is head injury due to direct impact by fractured occipital bone on the underlying brain tissue. 12. From the Charge-sheet of the case it is seen that the investigating officer collected relevant information that on the night of 14.04.2014, the respondent accused No. 2 along with the deceased went to a resident of a witness wherefrom they booked two tickets for the next day to travel from Khawzawl to Aizawl by maxi cab and gave the mobile number of the deceased with the said booking counter and when the helper of the said maxi-cab gave a call to the deceased in the early morning on the next day i.e. 15.04.2014 to confirm their journey, his call was unattended as there was no reply from the given mobile number. Prior to arrest of the accused respondent No.2, police on obtaining CDR, recovered the mobile handset of the deceased to which the helper of the maxi-cab gave a call early in the morning on 15.04.2014, from a lady, who on being enquired informed police that she purchased the said mobile from a Mizo boy in the afternoon of 15.04.2011 at Rs. 1,000/- and after arrest of the accused respondent No.2, revealed that he sold the mobile handset of the deceased to a lady on 15.04.2011 at Rs. 1,000/- and later in an identification parade, the said lady identified the accused respondent No.2, from whom she purchased the said mobile handset that belongs to the deceased. 13. 1,000/- and after arrest of the accused respondent No.2, revealed that he sold the mobile handset of the deceased to a lady on 15.04.2011 at Rs. 1,000/- and later in an identification parade, the said lady identified the accused respondent No.2, from whom she purchased the said mobile handset that belongs to the deceased. 13. From the charge sheet it is also seen that on special input, police arrested the accused respondent No. 1 and during investigation, said accused stated before police that he is involved in the murder of the deceased and after committing the crime he took away the wallet, mobile handset, some amount of heroin and later thrown away the said wallet in a dustbin at Aizawl and sold the mobile handset to a non Mizo porter and police could not recover the said wallet and the mobile of the deceased. As per the Charge-sheet, police have also collected necessary FSL Report. 14. The Charge-sheet also reveals that the deceased used three sim cards for his mobile connections. 15. It is a settled law that the charge sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting that offence for proceeding further in the matter and therefore the Trial Court in a criminal proceeding has to look into the relevant law and allegations made in the Charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed to frame charge for Trial before discharging the accused. 16. With regard to Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure, a three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 have held that - "30. …….. In our view, a better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. 31. Let us note the meaning of the word 'presume'. In Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". (emphasis ours). 31. Let us note the meaning of the word 'presume'. In Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". (emphasis ours). In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law 'presume' means "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming", Stroud's Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." (emphasis supplied). In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same quotation finds place at p. 1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence; a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 17. Another three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 have held that - "at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by court is not required." 18. With regard to similar provisions contained in Sections 202 and 203 of the CrPC, 1898 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal reported in (1973) 3 SCC 753 , which is also by a three Judges bench have held that - "the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case". 19. In the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to Sections 226, 227 and 228 of the CrPC have held that - "4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- … (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a 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 not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. It the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227." 20. Therefore at the time of framing of charge it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the acquisition which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. The purpose of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the acquisition made against the accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against the accused person, since the evidence are yet to be taken and the aspects which the accused terms vulnerable can very well be clarified by evidence when the prosecution has its opportunity of placing the case through witness in Court. 21. In the present case, the learned Trial Judge did not consider the Charge-sheet wherein the investigating officer found that there is cogent evidence that the accused respondent No. 2 was with the deceased till the night of 14.04.2014 and on that night both of them booked for a trip to Aizawl on 15.04.2014 and that there are evidence that the said accused sold the mobile hand set of the deceased on 15.04.2014 to a lady at Rs. 1,000/-, where the concerned lady identified him. Though the accused respondent No. 1 was arrested on special input and he stated before police that he killed the deceased on 15.04.2014 and sold his mobile to a non-Mizo porter, the possibility of his involvement in the alleged crime also cannot be ruled out as there is also evidence that the deceased had three mobile Sims. As such some grave doubt also casts upon the said respondent accused No.1. 22. As such some grave doubt also casts upon the said respondent accused No.1. 22. From the above it can be seen that there are prima facie evidence against the respondents accused persons with sufficient ground for proceeding against them in the case and regarding sufficient ground for conviction, it can be considered only after recording of proper evidence by the Trial Court. 23. From the discussions made herein before the Court found that there are prima facie materials in the Charge-sheet against the respondents/accused persons and therefore, the conclusion of the learned Trial Court that death of the deceased cannot be caused by two different persons at different times with a single hammer, can only be considered after recoding evidence of the prosecution since it is the prosecution only who is required to place necessary evidence and proof beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons to prove the allegation levelled against them in the Charge-sheet. Moreover, in presence of prima facie material/evidence, the impugned decision that there is no material evidence on record in the Charge-sheet to connect the respondent accused persons with the murder of the deceased is in the opinion of the Court is bad in law. 24. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 289/2015 arising out of Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 29/2014 discharging both the accused respondents herein from the liability of the charges under Sections 302/392/34 of Indian penal Code is hereby set aside and quashed and the Additional sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl is directed to frame appropriate charge or charges against the respondents accused No. 1 and 2 and to proceed further with the trial of the said Sessions Case No. 21/2015 in accordance with law. 25. Accordingly this petition stands allowed. 26. On raising a bill, the State Legal Services Authority, Mizoram, Aizawl shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae towards his legal remuneration. 27. Registry shall send back the LCR to the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl with a copy of this Judgment. Petition allowed.