Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1690 (GAU)

Techi Kak S/o Shri Techi Mutie v. Taya Chumi D/o Shri Taya Tebi

2024-11-29

N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Khoda Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been so instituted presenting a challenge to an order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021 corresponding to Banderdewa Police Station Case No. 22/2020, towards discharging the respondent No. 1, herein, Ms. Taya Chumi, from the case. The petitioner has also assailed the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022 in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, defreezing the bank account bearing A/c No. 916010074154305 of the said respondent No. 1 as maintained in the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2020, at about 13.00 hours, the Officer-In-Charge, Banderdewa P.S. received telephonic information about an accident that took place near Karsingsa Block Point, in between Nirjuli and Banderdewa. Thereafter, the Officer-In-Charge, Inspector Gocham Tassa of Banderdewa P.S. and his team rushed to the spot, which is situated at a distance of 4 KM from the P.S. Having arrived at the place of occurrence, the Officer-In-Charge found that there were two persons in the vehicle at the time of accident, namely, Techi Meena Lishi, wife of Roni Lishi and her driver, resident of A Sector, Naharlagun. Both the persons were evacuated to the Hospital and later on; Techi Meena Lishi succumbed to her injuries at TRIHMS Hospital, and the driver Shri Dathang Suyang survived with minor injuries. No apparent damage to the vehicle was observed. Thereafter, the Officer-In-Charge, prepared rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, taking photographs and seized the Innova vehicle, bearing Registration No. AR-01H-3782. Later on, at about 19.00 hours, on the same day, the Officer-In-Charge received one written F.I.R. from Shri Techi Lir, to the effect that on that day at about 12.39 hours, Smti Techi Meena Lishi called him from her mobile number 8575201455 and informed him that she was going to Karsingsa on being called by her husband Shri Lishi Roni and her mother-in-law (Lishi Nami). Thereafter, at about 2.15 PM, his wife informed him that his sister Techi Meena Lishi has already died. Hence, he suspects that on 05.11.2020, in between 12.40 to 2.00 PM, at Karsingsa Block Point towards Banderdewa, one driver Dathang Suyang, under Khonsa P.S. and Shri L. Roni son of Shri Lishi Legi of A Sector, Naharlagun have murdered his sister Techi Meena Lishi with pre-planned preparation and hatching a criminal conspiracy. Upon the said F.I.R. the Officer-In-Charge, Banderdewa P.S. registered Banderdewa P.S. Case No. 22/2020, under Sections 279/304-A IPC, which was registered upon the initial telephonic information of the vehicle accident. Thereafter, the case was endorsed to Inspector Minli Geyi, Officer-In-Charge, Nirjuli P.S. for further investigation, by an order of the SDPO, Naharlagun, dated 11.11.2020, bearing no. SDPO/NLG 05/2016. Accordingly, Inspector Minli Geyi has investigated the case and after completion of investigation, he laid Charge-sheet against 7(seven) accused persons namely, (1) Lishi Roni, (2) Kapwang Letey Lowang, (3) Dathang Suyang, (4) Taney Khoiyang, (5) Damreit Khoiyang (6) Taya Chumi and (7) Bijay Biswas @ Dengu to stand trial in the Court, under Section 120B/302/316/201 IPC. While submitting the Charge-sheet, the Officer-In-Charge has informed the Court that CFSL report have not yet been received and investigation is still going on to find out more supporting facts and evidence and supplementary Charge-sheet will be filed, as per the provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Court below, complying the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C., and thereafter hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2021, had framed charges against the accused Lishi Roni, Damreit Khoiyang, Dathang Suyang, Kapwang Letey Lowang and Taney Khoiyang under Section 120B/302/316/ 201 read with Section 34 IPC, and on being read and explained over, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Vide the same order the learned Court below has discharged accused Taya Chumi and Bijay Biswas, having found no prima facie case against them under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court discharging the respondent No. 1, viz. Ms. Taya Chumi, and one Bijay Biswas; the petitioner, herein, had approached this Court by way of instituting Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 08/2022. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court discharging the respondent No. 1, viz. Ms. Taya Chumi, and one Bijay Biswas; the petitioner, herein, had approached this Court by way of instituting Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 08/2022. This Court gave a final consideration to the said criminal revision petition and vide order, dated 02.08.2022, on noticing that on the date of passing of the impugned order; the supplementary charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. was not placed on record, proceeded to interfere with the order impugned therein and remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court for consideration of the matter, afresh, on the basis of the materials available in the supplementary charge-sheet and to pass an order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceeding. Accordingly, the matter on being so remanded; a fresh consideration was made thereon by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023, by holding that the materials brought on record did not give rise to a grave suspicion of involvement of Ms. Taya Chumi and Bijay Biswas, in commission of the alleged offence; proceeded to discharge them from the case for want of prima facie evidence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide order, dated 09.01.2023, passed in IA (Crl.) 115/2022, so instituted by the respondent No. 1, herein, praying for defreezing her personal saving bank account bearing A/c No. 916010074154305 and maintained by her with the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar; proceeded to direct for defreezing of the said account by the bank authority on production of the Passbook bearing the details of the respondent No. 1, herein, before it. 6. Being aggrieved by the said orders, both dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner, herein, who is the father of the deceased Late Techi Meena Lishi has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 7. 6. Being aggrieved by the said orders, both dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner, herein, who is the father of the deceased Late Techi Meena Lishi has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 7. The learned counsels for the parties, having made their submissions by referring to the circumstances projected by the prosecution in the charge sheets so filed in the matter and noted by the learned trial Court for the purpose of discharging the respondent No. 1, herein, from the case; the conclusions so drawn by the learned trial Court, being relevant, is extracted herein-below: “16...............A cursory perusal of supplementary charge sheet, it goes on to show that I.O. has not collected any evidence to substantiate his claims that on 25.11.2020 Miss Chumi Taya has transferred Rs. 25,000/- through CSP, Ganga in Itanagar as travel expenses to Kapwang Letey Lowang, except mobile of number of the accused, i.e., Miss Chumi Taya. In contrary, Mr. Lishi Roni (prime accused) admitted in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that he has sent the said amount by himself. 17. Neither in the main charge sheet nor two supplementary charge be the IO has collected any CCTV footage from the CSP point or its periphery showing Miss Chumi Taya depositing, or entering inside CSP, Ganga on 25.10.2020. The prosecution has simply relied Paum Pare (AP) on the hypothesis that any person transferring money from his or her bank account using registered mobile number must be present in-person at the time of transferring money, which is vague and without clarity. 18. With regards to the contradiction in statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Chumi Taya as pointed out by Mr. Tama, Chumi Taya has assigned the reasons that out of confusion and being afraid, did not reveal to the IO on 12.11.2020 about the facts of handing of the three mobile handsets to accused persons. 19. Bank statement records in respect of saving Account No. 916010074154305 of Chumi Taya show that many transactions amounting to money in lakhs were transacted periodically for last many months before occurrence as well as on 05.11.2020 & 06.11.2020, which in totality, does not create any doubt or show an abnormal frequency of transactions so as to cast any doubt her behavior. As lucidly submitted by Mr. As lucidly submitted by Mr. Choudhary, learned Senior counsel appearing for Chumi Taya, the prime accused had been using above noted business bank account number after his bank all accounts were freeze by police owing to many criminal investigations launched So, cheque bearing number 017592 dated 03.11.2020 for sum of Rs. 5 lakh was also withdrawn by him. All figures and words which has not been subjected to scientific examination by the evidence A prosecution in order to authentic whether or not those figures and words were written by prime accused or Chumi Taya. 20. The evidences collected by the prosecution reveal that Kapwang Letey Lowang and another accused person arrived at Itanagar on 27.10.2020 and halted till 29.10.2020. It is apparent that prime accused, as Indicated in the order dated 20.12.2020, met all the alleged hired killers in the Hotel Su-Pinsa, Itanagar. 21. Having regards to law and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra) as well as in accordance with Section 227, Cr.P.C. this court is of the considered view that the evidences collected by the prosecution are not sufficient to holding trial against Bijay Biswas and Chumi Taya. Corollary of this is that proposition of the prosecution does not create grave suspicion of involvement of Miss Chumi Taya and Vijay Biswas in commission of alleged offence. In result, they are discharged from the case on want of prima facie evidence.” 8. Mr. Tama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, at the outset, submitted that a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court with regard to the circumstances projected by the prosecution against the respondent No. 1, herein, in the charge sheets so filed; would go to highlight that for the purpose of discharging the respondent No. 1, herein; the learned trial Court had proceeded to conduct a mini trial. It was further submitted by Mr. Tama, learned counsel, that the learned trial Court had not examined the evidences available against the said respondent No. 1 in the charge sheets in its totality and therefore, erred in arriving at a conclusion that no grave suspicion of involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the crime, involved, was forthcoming. 9. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, that the learned trial Court had not examined the evidences available against the said respondent No. 1 in the charge sheets in its totality and therefore, erred in arriving at a conclusion that no grave suspicion of involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the crime, involved, was forthcoming. 9. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, with regard to the first circumstance projected by the prosecution and noted by the learned trial Court against the respondent No. 1, herein, vide order, dated 09.01.2023, pertaining to the transfer of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through a CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, has submitted that Kapwang Letey Lowang, was, in terms of the materials available in the charge sheets, one of the main conspirators of the crime and the mobile phone used by the respondent No. 1, herein, for the transaction of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, which was projected to have been used as travel expenses by said Kapwang Letey Lowang, was seized subsequently, from the possession of the respondent No. 1, herein. 10. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had not stated anything with regard to the mobile phone, in question, being dispossessed from her at the relevant point of time when the said transactions were being so carried-out by the prime accused Lichi Roni and/or that the said mobile phone was used by the said prime accused. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has also submitted that the learned trial Court only by considering the statement of the prime accused Lichi Roni that the transaction was carried-out by him and further by contending that the I.O. had failed to collect any CCTV footage from the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, or, from its periphery, showing the respondent No. 1, herein, depositing or entering into the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, on 25.10.2020, had proceeded to draw conclusions in the matter. Mr. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has accordingly, submitted that by recording such conclusions, the learned trial Court had proceeded to consider the defence that may be put forward by the respondent No. 1 and had failed to take into account, the mobile phone so used for the said transaction, was so recovered from the possession of the respondent No. 1, herein, and that, there was no explanation of the respondent No. 1, available on record, to the effect that at the relevant point of time, the said mobile phone was not in possession of the respondent No. 1, herein. 11. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, by referring to the second circumstance projected by the prosecution in the charge sheet against the respondent No. 1 and considered by the learned trial Court vide the order, dated 09.01.2023, pertaining to the newly procured mobile phones by the prime accused Lichi Roni for the purpose of communication between the co-accused, which were received by the respondent No. 1, herein, and subsequently, handed-over to the said prime accused Lichi Roni; has submitted that the respondent No. 1 in her initial statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; had not disclosed any knowledge with regard to the procurement of the said mobile phones. However, in her re-examination, the said respondent No. 1 had stated that the mobile phones were received by her as required by the prime accused Lichi Roni and later on, handed over to the said prime accused. 12. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has submitted that the same when considered with the statements made by the prime accused Lichi Roni that he wanted to get rid of his wife permanently and for the said purpose, he changed his behavior towards his wife by showing her love and care to win back her confidence and had started to visit her house from March 2020, and that he had briefed the respondent No. 1, herein, to support him in winning his wife’s heart; which reflects that the respondent No. 1 was in the know-how of the plan hatched by the prime accused Lichi Roni to murder Late Techi Meena Lishi and the said respondent No. 1 was an active participant in the said plan. Accordingly, Mr. Accordingly, Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned trial Court without a proper and due appreciation of the materials coming on record, with regard to the said circumstance projected by the prosecution against the respondent No. 1, herein, in the charge-sheets, erred at the stage of framing of the charge; to conclude that no strong suspicion against the respondent No. 1, herein, arose in the matter. 13. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has also referred to the last circumstance noted by the learned trial Court for the purpose of arriving at its conclusion to discharge the respondent No. 1 from the case i.e. the transaction carried-out by way of a Cheque bearing No. 017952, dated 03.11.2020, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was, thereafter, contended to have been used for the purpose of commission of the crime involving the murder of Late Techi Meena Lishi. The learned counsel has further submitted that the figures and words in the said cheque were written by the prime accused Lichi Roni and the respondent No. 1 had only signed the said cheque. However, the same was not subjected to any forensic examination by the prosecution. However, while recording the said conclusion; it is contended that the learned trial Court had not considered the materials brought on record from the Bank Manager of Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, wherein, it was highlighted that the said cheque was withdrawn by the respondent No. 1, herein, and the alteration on the above cheque was also authenticated by the respondent No. 1, during the withdrawal of the cheque. The disclosure made by the Bank authority was contended to be also to the extent that the respondent No. 1 had visited the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, for carrying-out the said transaction. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has, therefore, submitted that in view of the said position and in the absence of any plausible explanation of the respondent No. 1 in the matter; the conclusion reached by the learned trial Court with regard to the transaction involving the said cheque, is clearly perverse. 14. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, thereafter, referred to the statements made by the respondent No. 1, herein, in relation to Shri Kapwang Letey Lowang, one of the main conspirators of the crime. 14. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, thereafter, referred to the statements made by the respondent No. 1, herein, in relation to Shri Kapwang Letey Lowang, one of the main conspirators of the crime. The learned counsel has submitted that the respondent No. 1, during her initial examination under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had suppressed the fact that she knew the said accused Kapwang Letey Lowang and had further stated that she had heard his name for the first time. The learned counsel has submitted that however, the respondent No. 1, on her re-examination, had categorically stated that she knew said Kapwang Letey Lowang since the year 2017 and had also received money from him in her Bank account when the prime accused Lichi Roni was lodged in Tihar Jail for commission of some other offence. Accordingly, Mr. Tama, has submitted that the respondent No. 1, herein, was in the know-how of the conspiracy involved, for commission of the crime by the prime accused Lichi Roni along with Kapwang Letey Lowang and other co-accused. 15. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the learned trial Court had not considered the matter in its proper perspective and in the event, it was so considered; there were materials available on record to conclude that there was a grave suspicion of involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the crime involved and accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, discharging the respondent No. 1, herein, therefrom, would call for an interference. 16. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, with regard to the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022, has submitted that the said order was so passed in clear violation of the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and there being materials available on record to show that the bank account of the petitioner was utilized for the purpose of commission of the crime, in question, and the learned trial Court having not proceeded to ascertain from the I.O. as to whether further custody of the property(bank account) pending trial; was necessitated. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Tama, learned counsel, has further submitted that the learned trial Court while passing the above-noted order, dated 09.01.2023, had not imposed any conditions and had proceeded to issue the same mechanically by contending that defreezing of the bank account of the respondent No. 1 bearing A/c No. 916010074154305 would come into effect on production of the bank details by the said respondent No. 1 before the bank authority. 18. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Anant Prakash Sinha @ Ananth Sinha v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 105 (ii) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maoqbool Megrey & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 657 19. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, by referring to the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, has submitted that the projection made by the prosecution of the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the crime was so made only on account of the fact that the respondent No. 1 was a live-in partner of the prime accused Lichi Roni which was contended to be not an incriminating circumstance to hold the respondent No. 1 to be a co-conspirator in the crime, involved. 20. With regard to the first circumstance projected by the prosecution in the charge sheet so filed against the respondent No. 1 and considered by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023, pertaining to the transfer of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through a CSP Point at Ganga, Itanagar, which was used as travel expenses by Kapwang Letey Lowang; Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the materials available on record, more particularly, the statement of the prime accused Lichi Roni clearly brings on record that the said transaction was carried-out by him. Accordingly, there being no material brought on record in the charge sheets highlighting the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the said transaction; the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in the matter, would not call for any interference. 21. Accordingly, there being no material brought on record in the charge sheets highlighting the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the said transaction; the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in the matter, would not call for any interference. 21. With regard to the second circumstance projected by the prosecution in the charge sheet so filed against the respondent No. 1 and considered by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023; about the issue of procurement of the mobile phones by the prime accused Lichi Roni and the involvement of the respondent No. 1, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has submitted that merely on account of receipt of such mobile phones which were admittedly so received on the requirement so made by the prime accused Lichi Roni, could not have been held against the respondent No. 1 in the absence of any material brought on record by the prosecution in the charge sheet so filed, imputing knowledge to the respondent No. 1 of the purpose for which the said new mobile phones and connections were so taken. 22. With regard to the third circumstance projected by the prosecution in the charge sheet so filed against the respondent No. 1 and considered by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023, pertaining to the withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Bank account of the respondent No. 1, herein; Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has submitted that it is available in the records of the charge sheets filed by the prosecution that the account, utilized, was a business Bank account and the said account was so operated by the prime accused Lichi Roni after his other Bank accounts were freezed by the police owing to criminal investigations launched against him. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the Cheque bearing No. 017952, dated 03.11.2020, utilized for withdrawing the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- not having been subjected to any scientific examination; it is not permissible to draw any conclusion to the effect that the words and figures written in the said cheque, were so written by the respondent No. 1, herein. 23. Mr. 5,00,000/- not having been subjected to any scientific examination; it is not permissible to draw any conclusion to the effect that the words and figures written in the said cheque, were so written by the respondent No. 1, herein. 23. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the materials brought on record, would reveal that it is the prime accused Lichi Roni along with Kapwang Letey Lowang and another accused, who had met in a hotel at Itanagar and conspired the murder of Late Techi Meena Lishi. Accordingly, the materials brought on record, does not, in any manner, indicate that the respondent No. 1, herein, to be a co-conspirator of the crime, involved. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned senior counsel that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023, to discharge the respondent No. 1, herein, from the case, would not call for any interference. 24. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the impugned order is a reasoned order and no interference is required from this Court and it is permissible for the Court to proceed against the respondent No. 1, if, during trial, any material come out against her, by invoking the provision of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that even, if some materials are there on the record and, if, two views are possible upon the same materials; this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot impose its own view. 25. With regard to the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022; directing defreezing of the bank account of the respondent No. 1, herein, bearing A/c No. 916010074154305, maintained in the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar; Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the learned trial Court had sifted through the materials brought on record in the supplementary charge-sheet and had concluded that the money lying in the said bank account of the respondent No. 1 and the transactions made there through, did not have any nexus with the commission of the crime and therefore, any interference with the said order, dated 09.01.2023, would cause miscarriage of justice. 26. Mr. 26. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has, accordingly, submitted that considering the totality of the circumstances; this Court may be pleased to uphold and affirm the order, dated 09.01.2023, defreezing the bank account of the respondent No. 1, referred to above, and allow the respondent No. 1, herein, to operate the said account for her medical expenses and other such expenses. 27. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4 (ii) P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 398 (iii) Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bank of India, (2010) 9 SCC 368 (iv) M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768 28. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, by referring to the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, and by highlighting the circumstances considered by the learned trial Court which were projected against the respondent No. 1, herein, to indicate her involvement in the commission of the crime by the prosecution; has submitted that the learned trial Court had proceeded to make its examination in the matter mechanically without appreciating the materials brought on record by the prosecution which had indicated the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the crime, involved. 29. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, by dealing with each of the circumstances so proceeded, has highlighted the perversity in the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court thereon and the submissions being same as to the one so made by Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner; the same is not reiterated herein. 30. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, in support of her submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bank of India, (2010) 9 SCC 368 (ii) Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1 (iii) Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 17 SCC 451 (iv) State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 31. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. (2017) 6 SCC 1 (iii) Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 17 SCC 451 (iv) State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 31. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, have also been duly considered by this Court. 32. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions of the parties to the present proceeding; a reference to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being relevant, is extracted herein-below: “227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the 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 not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 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.” 33. (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.” 33. A conjoint reading of the said provisions, would reveal that on consideration of the records of the case and documents submitted; the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the learned trial Court shall proceed to discharge the accused and if, after consideration of such material, the trial Court is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the trial Court shall proceed to frame the charge against the accused. At the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had 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 trial Court has the power for sifting and weighing the evidence but for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy (supra), relying on its earlier decision in the case of P. Vijayan (supra), had drawn the following conclusions: “Legal principles applicable in regard to an application seeking discharge. 17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes 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 offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, 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, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. (See State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused o produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhis).” 35. The Code does not give any right to the accused o produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhis).” 35. Having perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy (supra) and on an understanding of the principles emerging therefrom; this Court now proceeds to consider the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021. 36. The conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court and extracted hereinabove, would reveal that the learned trial Court for the purpose of examining the claim of the respondent No. 1, herein, to discharge her from the case, has taken note of the 3(three) circumstances projected by the prosecution against the respondent No. 1, herein, in the charge sheets so filed by it in the matter. 37. The first of the circumstances as noticed by the learned trial Court is the projection by the prosecution that the respondent No. 1, herein, was actively involved in the commission of the crime in-as-much as, she had transferred amounts through a CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, which were utilized by Kapwang Letey Lowang as his travel expenses. The materials available on record reveal that the said transaction was so done by using the mobile phone of the respondent No. 1. The transaction was made to the account of the wife of the said Kapwang Letey Lowang and was utilized for his travelling expenses to come down to Itanagar along with other co accused persons. 38. The prosecution in the supplementary charge-sheet so filed, had brought on record, the statement of one Shri Moken Riba, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who was the operator of the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, from wherein, the said transaction was carried-out by the respondent No. 1, herein, with Kapwang Letey Lowang. 39. A perusal of the statement of said Shri Riba, would go to highlight that the said transaction was made through the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, by utilizing his wallet. 39. A perusal of the statement of said Shri Riba, would go to highlight that the said transaction was made through the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, by utilizing his wallet. It was submitted that the OTPs so generated in course of the transaction involved, were sent to Mobile bearing SIM No. 8794747763, which is the phone number of the respondent No. 1, herein. 40. It was further brought on record by Shri Riba that the OTPs so generated were shared at the CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, itself, during the process of the transaction. The transaction on the basis of the said materials coming on record and there being no contrary material denying the temporary dispossession of the said Mobile Phone from the respondent No. 1, at the relevant point of time, and also the subsequent recovery of a mobile phone bearing the said SIM No. 8794747763 from the possession of the respondent No. 1, herein; it was projected by the prosecution that the said respondent No. 1 was an active participant in the conspiracy hatched, leading to the murder of Late Techi Meena Lishi. 41. The learned trial Court while considering the said circumstance projected against the respondent No. 1, herein, had proceeded to draw a conclusion that the prime accused Lichi Roni having admitted in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that he had done the said transaction and had sent the amount involved, had proceeded to draw a further conclusion that the I.O. neither, in the main charge-sheet, nor, in the supplementary charge-sheet, had collected any CCTV footage from the CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, or, from the periphery of the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar on 25.10.2020, showing the respondent No. 1 depositing and/or entering inside the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar; the said conclusion is unwarranted in-as-much as the same would be a defence of the respondent No. 1, herein, during the trial of the case and the same cannot be projected and considered as a ground for holding that the circumstances involved, would warrant a discharge of the respondent No. 1, herein, at the stage of framing of charge itself. 42. 42. The learned trial Court while holding that the prosecution for projecting the said circumstances against the respondent No. 1, herein, had relied upon a hypothesis that any person transferring money from his/her bank account using her registered mobile number, must be present at the time of transferring money which was held to be vague and without clarity. However, while recording such conclusions, the learned trial Court had ignored the fact that the mobile phone, in question, which was used for the transaction from the said CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, was recovered from the respondent No. 1, herein, and there is no explanation of the respondent No. 1, available on record that the said Mobile Number was not being used by the respondent No. 1 and/or that she was temporarily dispossessed of the same by the prime accused Lichi Roni. 43. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court with regard to the circumstances projected by the I.O. involving the transaction of money on 25.10.2020 through the CSP at Ganga, Itanagar, for the travel expenses of Kapwang Letey Lowang, raises a strong suspicion of the same having been done by the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, her involvement in the commission of the crime, can be culled-out at least for the prima facie satisfaction required for framing of charge against her. 44. The second circumstance projected by the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the respondent No. 1 with the commission of the crime pertains to the involvement of 3(three) mobile phones and 3(three) SIM cards used by the accused persons for execution of the crime. 45. It is seen from the charge sheets so filed by the prosecution that the respondent No. 1, in her initial examination under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; on a specific query made to her as to whether she had the knowledge with regard to procurement of the said 3(three) mobile phones by the prime accused Lichi Roni, the respondent No. 1, herein, had categorically denied any knowledge of such mobile phones. However, surprisingly, in her re-examination, the respondent No. 1 changed her stance and stated that the 3(three) mobile phones were so collected by her from the office of the prime accused Lichi Roni as he had required her to do so on account of the fact that he was out of the State at the relevant point of time. The respondent No. 1 had further submitted that she had handed over the said mobile phones to the prime accused Lichi Roni subsequently. The only clarification given by the respondent No. 1 with regard to the knowledge of her procurement of the said mobile phones by the prime accused Lichi Roni, during her initial examination was that she was confused and afraid whether to tell it or not. The said statement of the respondent No. 1 reflects that she was in the know-how of the conspiracy hatched in the matter and the purpose for which the said mobile phones involved, were so procured by the prime accused Lichi Roni. Accordingly, a strong suspicion arises that she was an active partner in the conspiracy so hatched for commission of the crime involved and if it is not so, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 to have denied the knowledge of the said procurement of the said mobile phones during her initial examination. 46. A further circumstance projected by the prosecution and considered by the learned trial Court for the purpose of discharging the respondent No. 1, herein, pertains to a transaction involving the cheque No. 017592, dated 03.11.2020, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was projected to have been used for the commission of the crime, involved. 47. The learned trial Court by concluding that the figures and words in the said cheque were written by the prime accused Lichi Roni and the respondent No. 1, herein, had only signed thereon, as its authorized signatory and the said cheque having not subjected to any forensic examination by the prosecution to authenticate whether or not, those figures and words were written by the prime accused, or, the respondent No. 1; proceeded to hold the same in favour of the respondent No. 1, herein. 48. 48. The learned trial Court while proceeding to draw the above conclusion, had failed to appreciate that in the first supplementary charge-sheet on a requisition under Section 91(a) being sent to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, he had submitted his reply to the queries and in the reply, he had disclosed that the cheque was withdrawn by the customer herself in cash and the alterations in the cheque, in question, were also authorized by the customer i.e. respondent No. 1, herein, during the withdrawal of the cash. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had personally visited the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, for carrying-out the said transaction. The said material in the form of disclosure made by the bank authorities being available on record; the learned trial Court could not have ignored the same in-as-much as it is revealed from the statements of the prime accused Lichi Roni and also Kepang that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sent by the prime accused Lichi Roni to Kepang through Changwang on 03.11.2020. 49. The above factor when considered along with the absence of any cogent explanation brought on record by the respondent No. 1 as to how she had put to use the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- so withdrawn by her on 03.11.2020; give rise to a strong and grave suspicion of the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the conspiracy for execution of the crime. 50. The discussions made hereinabove with regard to the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court pertaining to the circumstances projected by the prosecution against the respondent No. 1, herein, in the charge sheets so filed in the matter; would go to reveal that the materials so brought on record in the said charge sheets, were not rebutted by the respondent No. 1. Further, the test that has to be applied by the criminal Court while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to an application seeking discharge of an accused, is whether the materials on record if unrebutted, is such that on the basis of which a conviction is said to be reasonably possible; this Court, on an examination of the materials brought on record against the respondent No. 1, herein, in the charge sheets so filed in the matter by the prosecution and in the absence of a plausible explanation with regard to the same being revealed from the records of the case, from the respondent No. 1; a reasonable possibility of conviction of the respondent No. 1, herein, arises in the matter. 51. It is also to be noted that from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy (supra), it is revealed that the expression “record of the case” used in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, means the documents and articles produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the denial and other contentions so raised by the respondent No. 1, herein, in the matter, is to be confined to the materials produced by the police. 52. In the above conclusions; the materials submitted by the prosecution which has to be taken to be true on the face of it at the stage of framing of charge; this Court is of the considered view that a prima-facie involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, throughout the entire conspiracy, is evident and a grave suspicion of her involvement in the commission of the crime, involved, is apparent. 53. Another circumstance which was projected against the respondent No. 1, herein, by the prosecution in the charge sheets so filed by the prosecution, however, not taken into account by the learned trial Court for drawing its conclusions is with regard to the initial statement made by the respondent No. 1, herein, wherein, she had stated that she had no acquaintance with Kapwang Letey Lowang. However, the materials on record, reveal that during her re-examination; the respondent No. 1 had retracted from the said position and had stated that she knew Kapwang Letey Lowang since the year 2019 and also had his phone number saved in her mobile phone. However, the materials on record, reveal that during her re-examination; the respondent No. 1 had retracted from the said position and had stated that she knew Kapwang Letey Lowang since the year 2019 and also had his phone number saved in her mobile phone. The respondent No. 1 also admitted to have had financial transaction with said Kapwang Letey Lowang on behalf of the prime accused Lichi Roni earlier. Thus, a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent No. 1, herein, in not promptly disclosing the fact of her acquaintance with Kapwang Letey Lowang and materials being available on record to demonstrate that Kapwang Letey Lowang was an active participant in the conspiracy so hatched and also in the execution of the crime leading to the murder of Late Techi Meena Lishi; a grave and strong suspicion arises of the involvement of the respondent No. 1, herein, in the commission of the offence, involved. 54. Having concluded with regard to the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court with regard to the circumstances so projected by the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the respondent No. 1 in the commission of the crime and noted in the order, dated 09.01.2023; this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court had not considered the application of discharge of the respondent No. 1 in the manner required and had mechanically come to a conclusion that there was no circumstance giving rise to a grave suspicion and involvement of the respondent No. 1 in the commission of the offence so involved. Accordingly, the further submissions so made by Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, herein, would not merit acceptance. 55. The reasoning as advanced by the learned trial Court in its order, dated 09.01.2023, as passed in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, is clearly erroneous on account of the fact that while at the stage of framing of the charge; the learned trial Court had taken into account the defence that may be placed in the matter by the respondent No. 1, more particularly, with regard to the transactions involved in transfer of Rs. 25,000/- to Kapwang Letey Lowang and also with regard to the transactions involved in withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her Bank account on 03.11.2020. 56. 25,000/- to Kapwang Letey Lowang and also with regard to the transactions involved in withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her Bank account on 03.11.2020. 56. It is a settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge; the probative value of the material on record, cannot be gone into by the learned trial Court and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to accepted as true. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2023, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, to discharge the respondent No. 1, herein, therefrom; would call for an interference from this Court. 57. Having drawn the above conclusion with regard to the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, this Court would now proceed to examine the order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022 in Sessions Case No. 02/2021. 58. A perusal of the said order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022, would go to show that the learned trial Court without following the procedure mandated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in this connection, and by only, noticing the health condition of the respondent No. 1, herein, and her requirement for further treatment at Delhi, proceeded to, also by noticing that the evidences collected by the I.O. it is not shown that the money transacted through the business account No. 920020020664234, was so done for execution of the crime, in question; proceeded to permit defreezing of the account of the respondent No. 1, so maintained by her, in the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, on production of the bank passbook bearing the details of the respondent No. 1, before the bank authorities. 59. As noticed hereinabove, the business account No. 920020020664234, admittedly, was in the name of the respondent No. 1, herein, but was being used by the prime accused Lichi Roni, to park his money in-as-much as his other accounts were freezed on account of proceedings instituted against him. 60. Admittedly, a transaction by way of Cheque No. 17592, for an amount of Rs. 60. Admittedly, a transaction by way of Cheque No. 17592, for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was carried-out in the business account No. 920020020664234, for the purpose of execution of the crime involved and the same was prima facie done in terms of the disclosures made by the authorities of the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar, by the respondent No. 1, herein. 61. In that view of the matter; the learned trial Court without affording an opportunity to the I.O. to place his stand in the matter, could not have proceeded to draw the conclusions as drawn by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in the said order, dated 09.01.2023, so passed in IA (Crl.) 115/2022. 62. In view of the above position and materials being available being on record that the money so deposited in the account so maintained by the respondent No. 1, herein, with the Axis Bank, Itanagar Branch, Itanagar; more particularly, the business account No. 920020020664234, being the money of the prime accused Lichi Roni; this Court is of the considered view that the said order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, would call for an interference. 63. Having drawn the above conclusions; this Court hereby passes the following directions: (i) The order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, stands set aside. (ii) The learned trial Court would now frame the charges against the respondent No. 1, herein, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, and thereafter, proceed with the trial of the case, strictly, in accordance with the provisions of law. (iii) The impugned order, dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA (Crl.) 115/2022, also stands set aside and the connected interlocutory application being IA (Crl.) 115/2022 is restored to the File of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia. (iv) The learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, shall now re-consider the said interlocutory application after providing a due opportunity to the prosecution to have its say in the matter and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, strictly, in accordance with law. (v) In view of the above directions, the respondent No. 1, shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, on 18th of December, 2024, along with an application praying for bail in the matter. (v) In view of the above directions, the respondent No. 1, shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 02/2021, on 18th of December, 2024, along with an application praying for bail in the matter. The learned Sessions Judge on appearance of the respondent No. 1, before him, shall frame the charge and also consider the bail application so filed by the respondent No. 1, herein, in accordance with law. 64. With the above directions and observations, the instant criminal revision petition, accordingly, stands allowed.