JUDGMENT : Learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 are present. 2. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C. (C.A.W), Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial Case No. 84 of 2021 and Sessions Trial Case No.77 of 2022 arising out of Nawadih P.S. Case No.101 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1562 of 2020 under sections 341, 323, 307, 498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner under section 227 of Cr.PC for discharge had been rejected. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, the allegations are made in regard to subjecting the victim to cruelty for demand of dowry and the two incidents are given in regard to the allegations that the murder was attempted on victim. One incident is on the occasion of Durgapuja in her matrimonial house she was beaten and the attempt was made to set her ablaze wherein her right hand also received burn injury. A panchayat was held but she did not go to move to the police station. The another incident is of 10.12.2020 when at 4 O'clock the victim was forced to sit by the accused person in car no. JH-01BT-9401 in order to commit her murder and the cloth was also tied on her mouth when they left the house. However she untied the cloth from her mouth and shouted for help near the village Godwadih wherein the villagers had intercepted the vehicle and surrounded the same. The accused persons made attempt to flee away after having thrown her from the vehicle. The villagers had apprehended her husband and mother-in-law whereas the father-in-law and the brother-in-law managed to flee away and the matter was referred to the police station concerned. In this incident the victim sustained injury on her right and left leg and both the hands. 5. The villagers had apprehended her husband and mother-in-law whereas the father-in-law and the brother-in-law managed to flee away and the matter was referred to the police station concerned. In this incident the victim sustained injury on her right and left leg and both the hands. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation the first incident is not proved so far as the second incident is concerned, no one witness of the village had stated that the mouth of the victim was tied with any cloth rather it is stated that when the victim shouted and after hearing the screaming, the villagers intercepted the vehicle and the accused person in order to flee away pushed her out of the vehicle but at the same time her husband and mother-in-law both were apprehended by the villagers. So far as the injury report is concerned, there are three injuries and all the simple in nature. There is nothing on record to show the intention on the part of the accused person to commit murder of victim as such the offence under section 307 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners and the learned court below had rejected the application of the petitioners, in which, the petitioners have prayed for their discharge. 6. Herein the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this criminal revision he is pressing only this criminal revision to the extent that no charge under section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the contentions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and contended that certainly in regard to the first incident the panchayat was held but no member of the panchayat was interrogated by the investigating officer during investigation. As per FIR allegations, the victim did not go to the police station and there is no such evidence of the first occurrence in which the allegations are made in regard to setting her ablaze; but she has the burn injury mark on her hand. It is also further submitted that so far as the second incident is concerned, the victim was forced to sit in the vehicle early in the morning and the intent of the accused person was only to commit her murder. It is also further submitted that so far as the second incident is concerned, the victim was forced to sit in the vehicle early in the morning and the intent of the accused person was only to commit her murder. Though her mouth was tied with the cloth however she untied the same and it was on her screaming that the villagers heard the same and intercepted the vehicle and the two of the accused managed to flee away and two were apprehended at the spot by the villagers. The victim was pushed out of the vehicle wherein she sustained injury. The intention of the accused persons from their act of taking her from the house by the vehicle and also tied the cloth on her mouth and then pushing her out of the vehicle shows the intention of the accused persons to commit her murder though the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature. It is the intention alone on the basis of which the offence under section 307 is made out as such the discharge application rejected by the learned court below in toto bears no illegality and the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that no offence under section 307 is made out cannot be sustained. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has referred the judgment passed in “State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others” reported in (1983) 2 SCC 28 . 9. It is the settled law that while framing the charge or disposing the discharge application the trial court concerned has to take into account the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence oral or documentary collected by the investigating officer during investigation. At the time of framing charge the appreciation of the evidence marshaling of evidence or conducting mini trial is not permissible. The only touchstone is that if there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused person for the trial of offence alleged the charge may be framed if there is definite opinion that no alleged offence is made out then the accused may be discharged. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vrs. Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504 : 13. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vrs. Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504 : 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] wherein it was held as under: (SCC p. 579, para 23) “23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra case [Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn., (1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 681 : 11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deal with discharge from criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. (underlined [Ed. : Herein italicised.] for emphasis) The court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into. (See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [ (1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 285] and State of W.B.v. Mohd. Nothing more is required to be inquired into. (See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [ (1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 285] and State of W.B.v. Mohd. Khalid [ (1995) 1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266] .) 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in Rukmini Narvekar vrs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. A.I.R.2009 SC 1013: 38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Central Bureau of Investigation vrs. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff & Ors (2010) 3 SCC Cr. 315: “The appreciation of evidence, at the stage of discharge is impermissible what is required is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused.” 14. The FIR of this case was lodged by the victim herself wherein the allegations are made that victim was married in the year 2016 with Arjun Kumar Sao according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her mother-in-law Tupali Devi, father-in-law Dindayal Mahto and husband Arjun Kumar Sao and it was stated by the in-laws that their son was an engineer and on account of less dowry the victim was tortured physically as well as mentally. It is also stated that on the occasion of Durgapuja her father-in-law and mother-inlaw also made attempt to set her ablaze wherein she received burn injury in her right hand, the mark of the same is still there and at that time the Panchayat was held. It is also stated that on the occasion of Durgapuja her father-in-law and mother-inlaw also made attempt to set her ablaze wherein she received burn injury in her right hand, the mark of the same is still there and at that time the Panchayat was held. She did not go to the police station at that time. Again on 05.12.2020 the husband of the victim came from Odissa to her in-laws house. Her husband had illicit relation with the daughter-in-law of maternal uncle and on 10.12.2020 her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and husband all under a conspiracy forced her to sit in the car no.JH01 BT-9401 with intent to commit her murder and took her at 4 O'clock of morning after having tied her mouth with the cloth which however she managed to untie and cried for help when they were near the village Kedwadih and the villagers intercepted the vehicle. The accused persons made attempt to flee away by pushing her out of the vehicle. The villagers apprehended to her husband and mother-in-law at the spot. The father-in-law and brother-in-law managed to flee away and in this occurrence she sustained injury on her left and right leg and also in both the hands. 15. In para-6 of the case diary, the restatement of victim was recorded in which she corroborated the prosecution case which was lodged by victim herself. In para no.7 of the case diary, statement of Aarti Devi (mother of victim), in para no.8 Shubham Kumar (the brother of victim), Rahul Kumar (the brother of victim) in para no.9 were recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. In para-17 statement of Manoj Barnwal, in para-18 statement of Ganesh were recorded. Both these witnesses stated that hearing the screamings at 4:30 in the morning of a woman sitting in the vehicle they intercepted the vehicle and the accused persons having pushed the victim out of the vehicle made attempt to flee away. The villagers apprehended one female and a male at the spot. The two male persons managed to flee away and the matter was referred to the police. In para-34 of the case diary is the injury report of victim wherein there are shown three injuries: (i) abrasion on right knee joint of size 1” x 1”, (ii) abrasion on right elbow joint of size 1” x 1” and (iii) abrasion on left lower lip of size 1/4” x 1/4”. In para-34 of the case diary is the injury report of victim wherein there are shown three injuries: (i) abrasion on right knee joint of size 1” x 1”, (ii) abrasion on right elbow joint of size 1” x 1” and (iii) abrasion on left lower lip of size 1/4” x 1/4”. All the three injuries were simple in nature. 16. The FIR of this case was lodged for the offence under sections 341, 323, 307, 498A r/w 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After concluding the investigation the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet for the same offence. 17. So far as the allegations made for the offence alleged are concerned in regard to the allegations of making demand of dowry and for non-fulfillment of the same subjecting the victim to cruelty, the same is supported from the statement of victim herself and also from the statement of Aarti Devi (mother of victim), statement of Shubham Kumar and Rahul Kumar, both brothers of the victim. 18. So far as the offence under sections 341, 323, 307 of IPC is concerned, for the same, the two incidents shown in the FIR itself. 19. So far the first incident is concerned there is evidence in para-11 of the case diary of witness Taibiat Hussain. This witness corroborating the prosecution case also stated that on 26.10.2020 it was birthday night of the victim her mother-in-law and father-in-law both made attempt to set her ablaze. In that incident the victim received burn injury in her right hand. The burn mark is still there. At that time the local mukhiya Jagarnath Mahto and the relatives of the victims were also appeared and both were made to understand the situation. This incident is also corroborated by the mother Aarti Devi, brother Shuham Kumar and Rahul Kumar as well. 20. So far as the second incident is concerned the victim stated that she was forced to sit in the vehicle by the accused persons and the cloth was tied on her face and she was taken by the vehicle at 4' clock in the morning. However, she managed to untie the cloth on her mouth and cried for help at 4:30 near the village Nawadih. The villagers heard the screaming and intercepted the vehicle. However, she managed to untie the cloth on her mouth and cried for help at 4:30 near the village Nawadih. The villagers heard the screaming and intercepted the vehicle. The two of the accused persons the husband and the mother-in-law of victim were apprehended at the spot and two were managed to flee away. The victim was pushed out of the vehicle and in which she sustained injuries. This incident was seen by independent witness Lalita Kumari whose statement is recorded in para-18 of the case diary. Statement of Chanda Muni was recorded in para-19 of the case diary. Both these witnesses stated that they had seen the occurrence pushing the victim out of the vehicle and two of them managed to flee away and two were apprehended and they had attracted there having heard the rescue call made by the victim. 21. Though as per injury report there are three abrasions which are simple in nature. So far as the intention of the accused persons in regard to committing the offence under sections 341, 323 and 307 is concerned that as per allegations made by the victim she was unlawfully detained in the vehicle. Her unlawful detention is also corroborated that she cried for her rescue and the villagers having heard screaming attracted there and intercepted the vehicle. 22. The act and conduct herein of the accused persons becomes material to gather the intention of the accused persons in committing attempt to murder. It is the settled law that for the offence under section 307 of IPC though the injuries sustained by the victim are also one of the factor in considering the intention of the accused persons in order to commit attempt to murder yet there are other circumstantial evidence such as the act conduct of the accused persons at the place of occurrence. Herein the victim whose mouth was tied with the cloth though the same cloth was not taken in custody by the investigating officer yet the statement of victim is corroborated that she cried for help as the accused persons were intended to commit her murder. It was the very reason that the persons of the village attracted there and intercepted the vehicle. The statement of victim is also corroborated with the statement of two independent witness Lalita and Chanda Muni. 23. It was the very reason that the persons of the village attracted there and intercepted the vehicle. The statement of victim is also corroborated with the statement of two independent witness Lalita and Chanda Muni. 23. Therefore, taking into consideration the cumulative evidence collected by the IO in its entirety and the allegations made in the FIR, the offence for which the charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons is made out and the court below in declining the discharge application to allow the same bears no illegality. Accordingly, this criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 24. This criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned court below is affirmed. 25. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not prejudice of the merits of the trial. 26. Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned court alongwith the record.