JUDGMENT : The instant application is directed against the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Nagar P.S. Case No.306 of 2008 corresponding G.R. No.934 of 2008 whereby the learned court below has charged the petitioners for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.12.2008 at about 2.00 a.m. the grand daughter of the informant/complainant namely, Nutan Kumari aged about 15-16 years was sleeping in a room and at mid night upon her noise, when he went to her room, he found her in burning condition. She told him that some one had poured petrol upon her body and set her on fire through a stick of match box. It was also alleged that when the informant went outside he found that the petitioners alongwith other two unknown persons were running, so he raised alarm upon which persons from neighborhood gathered there and all of them chased the petitioners and others but they managed to escape from the spot. Thereafter, informant/complainant-Panchanand Mahto took the victim to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment. The statement of the informant has been recorded by the police as the victim was not in a position to tell anything who finally succumbed to injury. On the Fardbeyan of the informant, F.I.R was lodged bearing Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.306/2008 dated 05.12.2008 for the offence under Sections 320, 326, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. The police submitted final form, and thereafter a protest petition was filed upon which cognizance was taken 3. Mr. K. K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in course of investigation and also on supervision made by Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, it was found that no alleged occurrence was committed by the petitioners rather the grand daughter of the informant/complainant committed suicide by setting fire on her body. The said report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar on 20.09.2009 and on the basis of which the conclusion was given by the I.O showing the alleged occurrence as mistake of fact and the said conclusion was made in para-69 and 70 of the case diary. The said report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar on 20.09.2009 and on the basis of which the conclusion was given by the I.O showing the alleged occurrence as mistake of fact and the said conclusion was made in para-69 and 70 of the case diary. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after submission of the police report, complainant filed a protest petition on 07.01.2009 by denoting the names of some sets of witnesses, who were already examined by the police and the learned trial court on the basis of the protest petition and statement of these witnesses, who were examined by the police, took cognizance for the offence under Section 302 IPC on 13.08.2012 against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the brother of deceased deposed that burning material was thrown from ventilator. He further argued that even if it is assumed that the burning material was thrown from ventilator then the same ought to have fallen on head but there is no burn injury on the scalp as per medical examination report. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the learned trial court relied on the witnesses who were highly interested witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the State however submitted that it is a fit case where the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners. He further argued that at the time of framing charge roving inquiry and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not warranted. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials available on record. It is true that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the Court cannot act as mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass the order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and to weigh the evidence as if the Court is conducting a trial is not permissible. If on the basis of materials on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. If on the basis of materials on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. In other words, if the Court think that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to see the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame charge against him. The law at this point is analyzed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, reported in 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 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 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.” 6. In the instant case, the deceased-Nutan Kumari was sleeping in the room and at mid night upon her noise, when the informant went to her room, he found her in burning condition. The said deceased told the informant that someone had poured petrol upon her body and set her on fire. It was also alleged that when the informant went outside, he saw the petitioners alongwith other persons were running, upon which he raised alarm. The said deceased told the informant that someone had poured petrol upon her body and set her on fire. It was also alleged that when the informant went outside, he saw the petitioners alongwith other persons were running, upon which he raised alarm. Pursuant to the filing of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate upon inquiry found that the father of the deceased-Jawahar Prasad Yadav after the incident came out and saw the accused persons running away. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length that as per the medical report Nutan Kumari, the deceased, was having burn injury over face, over both arms and legs and over neck. He further argued that the real position of the deceased at the time of alleged incident in the room and that of ventilator has not come on the record and prosecution case is suffering from several lacunas. 8. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that at the stage of charge roving inquiry and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not warranted. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt and in the allegations leveled by the prosecution, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations leveled by the prosecution, without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. 9. I am of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material and strong prima facie case available on record against the petitioners to proceed and to frame charge against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out a case so as to warrant interference by this Court. As a result, this revision application is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.