JUDGMENT : P S DINESH KUMAR, J. 1. This petition is presented by the accused facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC challenging order dated 8th July 2019 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura in S.C. No.10021/2018, rejecting petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Shri.C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned Advocate for the petitioner made following submissions: * that petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Deceased is none other than petitioner's wife. In the FIR lodged by C.W.1 Rajanna, it is stated that on 9th February 2018 at about 9.30 a.m. petitioner informed him that his wife was not found since 5.30 a.m. He had lodged a missing complaint in Doddabelavangala Police Station. Subsequently on 21st February 2018 petitioner again met C.W.1 at about 6.00 a.m. and confessed that he had murdered his wife and that he was afraid to inform the police and requested C.W.1 to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, C.W.1 filed the complaint at 8.00 a.m. on 21.02.2018. After investigation, police have filed charge-sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302,201 and 203 of IPC against petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to discharge him of offence of murder and to frame charge for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The State contested the said application. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order has rejected petitioner's application. * Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Shri.Hanumantharaya contended that though prosecution has listed 43 witnesses in the charge sheet, the statement of C.W.21 is very crucial. Analysis of his statement leads to an inference that charge under Section 302 is not sustainable against petitioner. Learned Trial Judge without proper application of mind has rejected the application. * Adverting to statement of C.W.27, Shri.Hanumantharaya contended that it is significant to note that petitioner had not carried any weapon. Therefore, there was no premeditation to commit the offence. It is natural for any person to be moved by passion and anger when one sees his wife at 4.00 a.m. in the morning with some other male person in an isolated place away from the house. Amplifying this contention he submitted that petitioner did not find his wife by his side in the early hours of 9th February 2018. It is natural for any person to be moved by passion and anger when one sees his wife at 4.00 a.m. in the morning with some other male person in an isolated place away from the house. Amplifying this contention he submitted that petitioner did not find his wife by his side in the early hours of 9th February 2018. When he went in search of her, he found his wife in the company of some person in an agricultural field. The time, place and circumstance witnessed by P.W.1 would have naturally disturbed his mental balance. As petitioner did not carry any weapon or any other material object which could be used to assault, the alleged act on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the death of his wife cannot be construed as an offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. In support of his arguments Shri. Hanumantharaya relied upon following authorities: (i) Attar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 11 SCC 719 (paragraphs No.28 to 33) and contended that when evidence does not disclose that accused had pre-meditated the act, such accused, is entitled to be charged for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. (ii) Gurubasavaiah and another Vs. State of Karnataka,1978 SCConlineKAR 352 (paragraphs 26 and 27) and contended that it is reasonable to infer that petitioner may have been taken over by 'grave and sudden' provocation in the given situation. (iii) Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vs. Potharlanka Venkateswarlu and others,2001 SCConlineAP 1182 (paragraph No.3 and 4) and contended that charges cannot be framed in a mechanical manner. 4. Opposing the petition, Shri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP argued that, a careful reading of statement of C.W.27 in its entirety suggests that petitioner had pre-meditated the crime. C.W.27 has stated that he had learnt that petitioner had confessed about the crime before C.W.1 and requested him to lodge a complaint with the police. He has also stated that petitioner had killed his wife by strangulating her and later smashing her head. Later in the night he had cut the dead body into four pieces and buried. 5. Shri.Rachaiah urged that the material on record does not unambiguously suggest that petitioner is not prima facie guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and that he can be tried only under Section 304 Part B IPC. Later in the night he had cut the dead body into four pieces and buried. 5. Shri.Rachaiah urged that the material on record does not unambiguously suggest that petitioner is not prima facie guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and that he can be tried only under Section 304 Part B IPC. He further contended that keeping in view the progress of the case, petitioner may seek alteration of charges or urge his plea at the stage of final arguments. Scaling down the offence to Section 304 Part II IPC at this stage amounts to conducting a mini trial and the same is not permissible. 6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. The main argument advanced by Shri.Hanumantharaya is that prosecution's case entirely hinges upon the evidence of C.W.27. He pointed out that statement of C.W.27 shows that he met the deceased at 4.00 a.m. and they were talking for a while in the agricultural field. After about five minutes he saw petitioner walking into the land. At that time he asked the deceased to go towards Nilgiri plantation. He saw petitioner following the deceased. In such circumstances, it is obvious that a man would loose his cool and mental balance. He also stressed that petitioner was not armed with any weapon. The verbal altercation which may have ensued between the couple could have led to an extreme situation resulting in petitioner loosing his power of discrimination. 8. It is relevant to note that in his statement, C.W.1 has narrated the conversation between him and the petitioner. According to him petitioner had confessed that on the fateful day, his wife had left the house and he followed her. He saw her in the company of a man. After seeing petitioner, the man who was talking to the deceased ran away. A quarrel ensued between petitioner and his wife. Petitioner strangulated his wife by the veil she was wearing and threw her in the Nilgiri plantation. She was still alive. Therefore, he smashed her head by using a boulder stone and the victim breathed her last. 9. Shri.Hanumantharaya also argued that an accused facing criminal trial under Section 302 IPC undergoes the ordeal of threat of punishment for death or life imprisonment. By the time the trial is concluded and sentence is pronounced, accused suffers great mental agony. Therefore, he smashed her head by using a boulder stone and the victim breathed her last. 9. Shri.Hanumantharaya also argued that an accused facing criminal trial under Section 302 IPC undergoes the ordeal of threat of punishment for death or life imprisonment. By the time the trial is concluded and sentence is pronounced, accused suffers great mental agony. Therefore, it is eminently desirable to carefully examine the material on record and frame appropriate charges against the accused. 10. Shri.Hanumantharaya is right in his submission that the aspect of cutting the body of the deceased into pieces cannot be considered while deciding the severity of the crime as the said act is not ante-mortem but it is post-mortem. At best it may be construed as an attempt to cause disappearance of evidence. 11. The circumstance upon which Shri.Hanumantharaya strongly relied to drive home his point that petitioner had not pre-meditated the crime because he did not carry any weapon, though looks attractive, the statement of C.W.1 containing the details of the manner in which the act was committed cannot be lost sight of. According to C.W.1, petitioner had confessed that he had smashed the skull of the deceased in such a manner that the brain matter had oozed out. The smashing of the scull has allegedly happened after strangulation and when the victim was still alive in Nilgiri plantation. Thus, prima facie it can be concluded that the fatal blow occurred after strangulation. Though it is not possible to infer minute to minute developments which may have ensued on the fateful day, suffice to state that material on record does not unambiguously suggest that the offence can be scaled down to Section 304 Part II IPC. In the circumstances, the authorities relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner do not lead his case any further. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 12. Resultantly this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that any observations made in this order are for the purpose of considering the contentions urged challenging the impugned order and they shall not affect the judgment after trial in any manner. 13. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. No.1/19 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.