ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Premkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned P.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the accused namely, Ph. Chaoba Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o Ph. Loken Singh. He filed an application being Cril. Misc. Case No. 61 of 2018 in Sessions Trial (C.A.W) No. 14 of 2018 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the above referred case. The application was resisted by the Public Prosecutor (P.P.) and after having heard the learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned P.P., the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) for Crime Against Women was of the view that after perusal and examining the materials submitted by the prosecution, there was sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused under Section 376 IPC. While doing so, the judge rejected the application filed for discharge stating that the issue raised by the accused can be considered at the time of trial and not at the time of framing charge. Though the reasons have not been in properly recorded by the Court below, the meaning however, appears to be that the ground pleaded for discharge is devoid of merit. Aggrieved by this, present criminal petition is filed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2015 a written complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Women Police Station, Imphal East stating that on 09.03.2015 at around 12.30 a.m. the daughter has been raped by unknown person inside the vehicle (4 wheeler) near Silheipung. She was pushed down forcibly after committing the heinous crime and the accused ran away leaving the victim at that spot. 4. That, this juncture this Court is constrained to observe that it is unfortunate that the Police Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station has revealed the name of the victim. The Director General of Police is directed to issue a circular to all officers that disclosure of the name of the victim is a serious offence and it should not be done in future. 5. On the basis of the complaint, witnesses have been examined, medical examination was conducted, material objects were recovered and vehicle was also ceased. After conclusion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 7/WPS-IE/2016 was filed on 15.04.2016 and FIR No. 9(03)2015 WPS-IE U/S : 376/417 IPC was filed on 09.03.2015. 5. On the basis of the complaint, witnesses have been examined, medical examination was conducted, material objects were recovered and vehicle was also ceased. After conclusion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 7/WPS-IE/2016 was filed on 15.04.2016 and FIR No. 9(03)2015 WPS-IE U/S : 376/417 IPC was filed on 09.03.2015. Several documents were filed along with annexures (Page No. 13-53) before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) for Crime Against Women, Manipur. At the time of framing charge, the said application for discharge was filed by the accused invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. against which the present criminal petition was filed. 6. In the present petition filed before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia pleads as follows : There is no eye witness of the alleged offence. Only 2 (two) in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are alleged to have seen the victim at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the entire investigation is based on conjecture and surmises. The complaint itself is vague and does not give any detail of the accused. On the basis of the vague complaint, charge sheet has been filed. The identification of the accused by the victim was based on the tutoring. It is further pleaded that there is no statement to corroborate the allegation of crime said to have been committed by the accused. The medical report of the victim and accused does not make out a case for offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that medical report is in favour of the accused and the exhibit does not show details of the seminal stain, spermatozoa relating to the accused. The learned counsel also relies upon the medical report to show that there is no offence of sexual intercourse in respect of the victim and therefore, the charge against the accused is based on conjecture and surmises. There is no credible evidence. The trial will cause great hardship to the accused and therefore, he should have been discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra, Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned P.P. states that scope of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and the role of the Court in considering a plea for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. It should not be invoked as an alternative to a full-fledged trial. Per contra, Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned P.P. states that scope of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and the role of the Court in considering a plea for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. It should not be invoked as an alternative to a full-fledged trial. He relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out principles to be followed. Section 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C. read as follows : “1. 227. Discharge - If, upon consideration of 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 no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 2. 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. In the decision of the Supreme Court, it has been held as follows : “21. (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. In the decision of the Supreme Court, it has been held as follows : “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge : (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 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 cos 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 the 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 material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, 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 accuse and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 24. At the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or while considering the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or the Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability etc. It is at the Trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one way or the other. 44. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that it cannot be concluded that framing of charges against the appellant by the Trial Judge is either bad in law or abuse of process of law or without any material. However, we clarify that dehors those comments, observations and explanations emanating from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which we referred in para 26, the trial Judge is free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the materials being placed by prosecution as well as the defence.” The Public Prosecutor also relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Vijayan –vs- State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 . This is also a case where the Trial Court and the High Court refused the application for discharge of the accused in a case relating to fake encounter. Relevant paras read as follows : “11. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 . This is also a case where the Trial Court and the High Court refused the application for discharge of the accused in a case relating to fake encounter. Relevant paras read as follows : “11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, 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 a charge against him. 12. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, wherein this Court observed as follows : “4. .......... Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place or proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if 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. If the evidence which the prosecutor purposes 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.” This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the trial Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused. 14. 14. The scope and ambit of Section 227 was again considered in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, in para 6 this Court held that : “6. ...... can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed ? It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to material the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh this Court observed that at the initial stage of the framing of a charge if there is a strong suspicion evidence 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. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged by 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 Union of India v. Prafull Kumar Samal this Court after considering the scope of Section 227 observed that the words ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’ clearly show that the Judge is not merely a post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Court to enter into pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but it may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. 25. As discussed earlier, Section 227 in the new Code confers special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the records and documents, he finds that “there is no sufficient ground” for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record and documents at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused. This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure. 26. In the case on hand, though, the learned trial Judge has not assigned detailed reasons for dismissing the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is clear from his order that after consideration of the relevant materials, charge had been framed for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and because of the same, he dismissed the discharge petition. After evaluating the materials produced by the prosecution and after considering the probability of the case, the Judge being satisfied by the existence of sufficient grounds against the appellant and another accused framed a charge. Whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are maters for trial. At this stage, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant and discharge is the only remedy. Further, whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is also immaterial. All these relevant aspects have been carefully considered by the High Court and it rightly affirmed the order passed by the Trial Judge dismissing the discharge petition filed by A – 3, the appellant herein. We fully agree with the said conclusion. 8. Further, whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is also immaterial. All these relevant aspects have been carefully considered by the High Court and it rightly affirmed the order passed by the Trial Judge dismissing the discharge petition filed by A – 3, the appellant herein. We fully agree with the said conclusion. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is evident that the fact as culled to make it clear that the charge sheet was filed on 15.04.2016 consequent to the registration of FIR on 09.03.2015 for the offence under Section 376/417 IPC. 9. Prosecution relies upon the statement of the victim, witnesses, material objects including evidence of forensic laboratory as well as medical evidence. All the documents were filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction for framing the charge. At the time, the petitioner accused has filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. pleading that in the FIR name of the accused is not reflected. There is no eye witness of the alleged offence. Test identification was doubtful, medical report is negative and therefore, he should be discharged. 10. The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) for Crime Against Women was of the view that on the examination of the material placed on record namely, charge sheet and connected documents, there appears to be sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused. Therefore, Court below proceeded to frame charge under Section 376 IPC. While doing so, the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed stating that the issue raised can be considered only at time of trial and not at time of framing of charge. 11. The Court below was justified in doing so, because Section 227 of Cr.P.C. provides that upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted and after hearing the submission of the accused and prosecution, if the Court is of the view that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the Court can discharge the accused. However, reason should be recorded for ordering discharge. 12. On the contrary, Section 228 of Cr.P.C. provides framing of charge after considering the materials. The Judge, if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence, then he can frame the charge. However, reason should be recorded for ordering discharge. 12. On the contrary, Section 228 of Cr.P.C. provides framing of charge after considering the materials. The Judge, if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence, then he can frame the charge. In this case, the Court below did not find sufficient ground for discharge of the accused because on the basis of the materials filed namely, charge sheet, relied upon documents, the Court was of the opinion that there was a prima facie case for framing charge and that there is no ground for discharge. The Court clearly held that there was sufficient material to frame charge against the accused. The rejection of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the framing of charge under Section 228 by the Court below tested on the parameters of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned G.A. for the State is justified and cannot be impugned. 13. In the case of Sajjan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated the principles (at para No. 21) as referred to above. As to the manner which, the Judge should look into the material placed for considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and also for framing charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines in Para No. 24 of the said decision. 14. In the case of P. Vijayan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has indicated what are the primary materials to be considered by the Court. The same is extracted in Para no. 7 above. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar (supra), relied upon the decision of Union of India –vs- Prafulla Kumar Samal to indicate that scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. Para No. 13 of Sajjan Kumar (supra) reads as follows : “13. The same is extracted in Para no. 7 above. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar (supra), relied upon the decision of Union of India –vs- Prafulla Kumar Samal to indicate that scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. Para No. 13 of Sajjan Kumar (supra) reads as follows : “13. In a subsequent decision i.e. in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, this Court after adverting to the conditions enumerated in Section 227 of the Code and other decisions of this Court, enuntiated the following principles : “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grace suspicion against the accused which has not been explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 16. The Supreme Court held that scope of inquiry by the Trial Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. should be limited to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and not beyond. 17. The Supreme Court held that scope of inquiry by the Trial Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. should be limited to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and not beyond. 17. Para No. 25 of P. Vijayan case has highlighted the scope of enquiry in such a case. The Trial Court was justified in following the above principles. 18. One other issue as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is detailed reasons have not been given by the Court below for dismissing the discharge petition. The answer is found in the Supreme Court decision in P. Vijayan (supra) in para No. 26 as extracted above. 19. Having considered the scope and power of the Trial Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and facts of the present case, it is clear that the issues raised by the petitioner are all based on material facts which require to be tested in the trial. On the basis of the points raised by the petitioner, question of discharge does not arise because if the plea of the petitioner accused is considered, then every document filed along with annexures is to be assessed by the Court below on merits in detail to come to the conclusion for the purpose of discharge. 20. The Supreme Court does not approve a roving inquiry at the stage of framing charge. In this case, the charge sheet is supported by statement of 13 (thirteen) witnesses, material objects, annexure of documents. All these cannot be analysed by the Trial Court at the time of appreciating the application filed to discharge the accused. On the contrary, it is a case for detailed examination by the Trial Court. 21. In the result, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with order of the Trial Court. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that framing charge as against the applicant by the Trial Court in exercise of power under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. cannot be faulted. The dismissal of the discharge application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is justified because by the nature of the case, it cannot be said that the trial will be an abuse of process of law. The dismissal of the discharge application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is justified because by the nature of the case, it cannot be said that the trial will be an abuse of process of law. The plea of the applicant that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused fails, in view of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence filed along with charge sheet. 22. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, finding no merit, writ petition is dismissed.