ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the State through Koratagere Police under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 12.04.2011 passed in S.C.No.5/2011 by the V Fast Track Court, Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) discharging the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner/State. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent and not chosen to argue the matter. 3. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the purpose of convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that Koratagere Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) alleging that on 24.08.2010, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Parvathamma-CW.1, the wife of Hanumantharayappa, the deceased. The Police registered the case in Crime No.186/2010 and later, charge sheet came to be filed. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the complaint, the complainant had stated that her husband had deserted her and she is living separately with her son and her husband was also living separately due to some family dispute. She had also alleged that her husband, i.e the deceased, had some illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. That on 24.08.2010, when the deceased and the wife of the accused were together in the house of the accused, the accused came there and picked up a quarrel with the deceased. Later, he took up a kerosene can and poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and set him on fire, due to which the deceased sustained injuries. The deceased was rescued by CW.2-Anjinappa and CW.3-Raja. They brought an ambulance and sent the deceased to the hospital and intimated the same to the wife of the deceased. Later, the complaint came to be registered and the Police prepared inquest panchanama. After confirming the death of the deceased by the Doctor, Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, filed charge sheet against the accused. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. After appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, he filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. After appearance of the accused before the Trial Court, he filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record discharged the accused holding that the deceased might have committed suicide by pouring Kerosene on his own body and the accused being a handicapped person, there is no chance of the accused committing the murder. Therefore, the accused has been discharged. The same is challenged by the State by way of this revision petition. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner/State contended that the Trial Court committed error in discharging the accused under Section 302 of IPC as the offence is a heinous offence. The statement of CWs.2 to 4 clearly goes to show that they came to the spot after hearing the hue and cry of the deceased from the house of the accused. Further, it shows that the deceased and the wife of the accused were found inside the house of the accused. The accused came there and picked up a quarrel and poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire. Thereafter, CWs.2 and 3 came to spot and sent the injured to the hospital in an ambulance. The accused has been arrested by the Police after receipt of the complaint. CWs.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses. They saw the deceased coming out of the house of the accused with fire and the accused closing the door of the house and running away. The kerosene can and other incriminating materials were seized by the Police from the spot by preparing the spot panchanama. On 26.08.2010, the accused has been arrested by the Police and intimation was given to the wife of the accused. The inquest panchanama was conducted by the Police in the hospital after the death of the deceased. Thereafter, they made a request to the Doctor for conducting Post-mortem and thereafter post-mortem has been conducted by the Doctor in the government hospital at Koratagere. These documents, statements of the witnesses, panchanama and the complaint disclose that the accused committed the murder by pouring kerosene on the body of the deceased on the background of illegal intimacy of the deceased with the wife of the accused. The motive is also brought on record by the prosecution. These documents, statements of the witnesses, panchanama and the complaint disclose that the accused committed the murder by pouring kerosene on the body of the deceased on the background of illegal intimacy of the deceased with the wife of the accused. The motive is also brought on record by the prosecution. Such being the case, the Trial Court discharging the accused is not correct. On perusal of the findings of the Trial Court for discharge, the Trial Court has stated that the accused is handicapped having 78% disability of his right hand, which is not correct. Though the certificate is produced to show his disability, but the photographs of the accused does not show that he is not capable of doing any work or lift and pour kerosene and lit fire to the deceased. The motive brought on record by the statement of the witnesses show the intimacy between the wife of the accused and deceased. Such being the case, the Court cannot presume the accused to be innocent and discharge the accused. The Trial Court has appreciated the statements and the Post-mortem report at the stage of hearing the arguments on discharge application, which is noting but appreciating the probative value of the documents at the time of framing charges, which is against the settled position of law. That apart, merely there is a mistake in showing date of the Post-mortem examination report as 23.08.2010, that itself not a ground to draw any inference at the stage of pre-trial. The presumption of drawing any adverse inference available to the Court only after the trial while deciding the matter on merits. Merely because the accused is handicapped, that is not a criteria for discharging him by looking at his physical appearance, but the photograph shows otherwise. Except little disability in his hand, his remaining body is in good condition. Therefore, the Trial Court cannot presume that the accused might not have committed the offence since he is handicapped, which is not correct. On the other hand, presumption and drawing inference that the deceased might have committed suicide at the time of framing of charges is also not acceptable. All these presumption and adverse inference and appreciation of evidence are available to the Trial Court only after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, presumption and drawing inference that the deceased might have committed suicide at the time of framing of charges is also not acceptable. All these presumption and adverse inference and appreciation of evidence are available to the Trial Court only after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is nothing but appreciating the documents on merits and deciding the probative value of the document prior to the trial is not correct. Therefore, the order suffers from legality and the Trial Court committed error on the ground of presumption and assumption prior to framing of charges. Thus, the order is liable to set aside. Hence, the following order: Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order of discharge dated 12.04.2011 passed in S.C.No.5/2011 by the V Fast Track Court, Madhugiri is hereby set aside. The application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C filed by the accused is hereby dismissed and the matter is restored to the file of the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law by securing the accused before the Court and dispose of the matter as early as possible.