JUDGMENT : Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 75 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Sections 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), has been rejected. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which are necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in the case, in short, is that on the basis of the written report of the informant Sambhu Kumar, the present case Bishtupur P.S. Case No. 277 of 2013 was instituted under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that his sister -Sunita Kumari since after marriage with Bhuneshwar Kumar, about three years ago, were living as husband and wife but after few days of marriage, there was a change in behaviour of accused Bhuneshwar Kumar. Since the marriage took place without the consent of family members of the parties and when the information regarding change in his behaviour was given to the in-laws of his sister, they refused to accept her upon which, matter was reported to Mahila Police Station, Sakchi. Thereafter, his sister and Bhubneshwar Kumar started living with the informant’s family but only after 4-5 days, Bhubneshwar Kumar left his sasural saying that he is going to meet his parents but when he did not return, his sister tried to contact him but she always found his mobile switched off. It is further alleged that the parents of Bhuneswhar Kumar used to give threatening to his sister for which a case bearing Mahila P.S. Case no. 14 of 2013 was registered. On 07.08.2013 in the evening, when his sister was alone in the house, her husband along with his brother Chunu came and misbehaved with his sister and threatened to kill her. On 08.08.2013 at 10:30 a.m., when the informant came to his house, found the door of his house closed and later on he found his sister hanging through fan. He took his sister to hospital where she was declared dead. It is further alleged that a suicidal note was found wherein it was written that for her death, her husband and his brother Chunu and other family members are responsible. 3. It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against all the accused persons. It is further alleged that a suicidal note was found wherein it was written that for her death, her husband and his brother Chunu and other family members are responsible. 3. It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against all the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance of offence was taken under Section 306/34 of I.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Where a petition under Section 227 of the Code was filed by the present petitioners for their discharge but the court below by order impugned dated 14.08.2015 rejected the prayer. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Chautrvedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that the court below without applying his judicial mind, in a mechanical manner, rejected the petition for discharge. It was also submitted that the deceased was not the legally wedded wife of Bhuneshwar Kumar rather without marriage, they were living together as husband and wife and that it would appear from the first information report itself that there is no such allegation of any torture or any act of abatement at the instance of the petitioners. So, no case under Section 306 of I.P.C. is made out and the presumption as envisaged under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, is not at all applicable against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be discharged. 5. Refuting the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel representing the State submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and at the stage of framing of charge, roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter is not at all permissible rather presence of grave suspicion and strong prima facie case are sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioners. 6. Being quite conscious of the fact that the trial would be at its very threshold and that in this application, this Court is dealing with the limited aspect of the petitioner being charged or discharged, I would like to examine the scope of Section 227 of the Code. The law at this point is succinctly analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed in para 19 as under:- “19. The law at this point is succinctly analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed in para 19 as under:- “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. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves 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.” In another judgment State through Inspector of Police Vs. A. Arun Kumar and Anr., 2015(1) EastCrC 450 (S.C.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court on consideration of several authorities on the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code have given a complete guidelines, which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, to sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 7. The ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above two cases clearly stipulates that at the initial stage, if there is strong and grave 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. 8. In a case Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. It is also not possible at this stage to make any roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter. 8. In a case Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of discharge in a complaint case, lodged at the instance of father of a deceased girl wherein he suspects that his daughter had been poisoned, has held in paragraph-28 as follows:- “28. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations brining out all ingredients of the charges levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 9. From perusal of the allegations made in the instant F.I.R. and the evidences available on record, there appears to be strong and grave suspicion against the petitioners. This is not the stage to examine where the trial will end in conviction or not but the Court has only to look into the allegations within the framework or guidelines given in the above cases Sajjan Kumar (supra), State through Inspector of Police (supra) and Rajiv Thapar (supra). The court below on perusal of the different paragraphs of the case diary and the suicidal note at paragraph-4 has found sufficient evidences against the petitioners to proceed in the case and rightly rejected the prayer for their discharge. The court below on perusal of the different paragraphs of the case diary and the suicidal note at paragraph-4 has found sufficient evidences against the petitioners to proceed in the case and rightly rejected the prayer for their discharge. Hence, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. 10. The revision application, being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed.