ORDER : 1. The Criminal Revision Case No.1223 of 2023 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the de facto complainant impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. The Criminal Revision Case No.1234 of 2023 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the State impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 3. The Criminal Revision Case No.7 of 2024 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the de facto complainant impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 4. Heard arguments of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pradymna Kumar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Sri D.Vamsi Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor. For respondent/accused written submissions were filed. 5. Questioning the order of discharge of accused, the State as well as the de facto complainant have come up with these revisions. 6. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri K.Munneppa was elected as sarpanch of Kommannuthala Village of Lingala Mandal. On 27.07.2021 at the office of MPDO, Pulivendula Mandal, he attended a training session meant for newly elected sarpanches. After the session was over, he as a pillion rider of a motor cycle driven by Sri S.Venkata Rami Reddy were returning to the village. At about 02.15 pm on 27.07.2021, several persons named in the FIR attacked him with deadly weapons and killed him. At 03.30 pm on 27.07.2021, the said S.Venkata Rami Reddy lodged a written information at Lingala Police Station of Kadapa District where the SHO registered FIR.No.87 of 2021. The case was investigated into. On completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet as against A1 to A16 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 120 B and 109 read with 149 IPC and cited fifteen witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pulivendula summoned A1 to A16 and thereafter in terms of section 209 CrPC committed the case to the court of sessions. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pulivendula summoned A1 to A16 and thereafter in terms of section 209 CrPC committed the case to the court of sessions. At the Sessions court, the case was registered as S.C.No.141 of 2022 and was made over to learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. All the accused made their appearances before the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, A5, A6, A7, A8 and A9 filed Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 under section 227 CrPC and prayed for discharge. State filed its counter. After due hearing, by an order dated 27.10.2023, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa allowed the petition and discharged A5 to A9 and cancelled their bail bonds. By the present revisions, the State as well as the de facto complainant assailed the order. 7. The question that falls for consideration is “ Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against A5 to A9 and the learned trial court committed il legality in discharging the accused?” POINT: - 8. The legislative direction to the sessions court for charge and discharge of accused are governed by section 227 and 228 CrPC. For convenience these provisions are extracted 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, 3 [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. 9. The case set out in the police report/ charge sheet as against A1 to A16 can briefly be mentioned here. In the elections for sarpanches, the candidate supported by A1 was defeated and the deceased Sri K.Munneppa won the elections. That caused grouse for A1. A week days prior to the alleged crime incident, A1 contacted A2 to A15 for preparing a plan to kill Sri K.Munneppa. A1 deployed A16 to observe the movements of Sri K.Munneppa/ deceased. On the fateful day, A16 who was engaged to observe the movements of Sri K.Munneppa informed the same to A1 who accordingly collected the remaining accused and all of them went on motorbikes and they reached the spot of offence where they intercepted the deceased and the de facto complainant. All the accused were holding sickles and were trying to attack Sri K.Munneppa. When the de facto complainant intervened, A5 to A9 told the de facto complainant that he was not their target and asked him to leave the place as otherwise they would kill him also. Afraid of A5 to A9 who were also holding sickles, the de facto complainant went aside. While he was witnessing the incident, the other accused attacked Sri K.Munneppa. A1 hacked on the head. A2 hacked on the right side of the face of the head. A4 hacked on the right leg. A3 hacked on the right hand. A10 hacked on the head. A11 hacked the right hand. The victim, crying in pain with all the bleeding injuries, fell down and died on the spot. 10. In the discharge petition filed by A5 to A9 before the court below, they contended that they were falsely implicated in this case and there were no overt acts attributed against these petitioners and at least there was no ominous allegation against them and even according to the charge sheet they did not cause any harm to the deceased and they were falsely implicated in this false case. The only overt act alleged against them was that they intimidated the de facto complainant and such allegation is highly superfluous and such allegations are often misused for implicating more number of accused. That there was no prima facie evidence collected against them to charge them for any offence. That the record would not disclose any grounds to presume these accused to have committed the offence. On broad probability and the material collected by the prosecution there are no prospects of the case ending in a conviction and therefore it would be an abuse of process of law to continue them in the case and therefore they sought discharge. 11. State in its counter raised various objections. However, the learned trial court in its order dated 27.10.2023 agreed with the submissions of the accused/ A5 to A9 and discharged them. Learned trial court in the impugned order stated that A5 to A9 did not attack and did not cause any harm to the deceased. LW.6 and 7 are stated to be eye witnesses. Having considered the statements of these witnesses recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 CrPC, the learned trial court stated that it verified FIR, 161 CrPC statements of eye witnesses and the charge sheet and found that in the charge sheet the allegation of killing the deceased was attributed as against all the accused whereas as per the FIR and section 161 CrPC statements of LW.6 and 7/ eye witnesses, A5 to A9 only threatened the de facto complainant by showing their sickles. Therefore, in its view, there are two views that were possible. One of the views gives rise to suspicion only and not grave suspicion. It cited Asim Shariff V. National Investigation Agency , [2019 (3) ALT (Crl) 91 (SC)] . In that ruling, their Lordships had stated that if two views were possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial court is empowered to discharge the accused. Acting upon that principle, the learned trial judge in the case at hand found it fit to discharge A5 to A9. It recorded that A5 to A9 did not have the common object along with other accused in killing the deceased since the witnesses in their statements did not say that A5 to A9 together acted in accordance with the common object. It recorded that A5 to A9 did not have the common object along with other accused in killing the deceased since the witnesses in their statements did not say that A5 to A9 together acted in accordance with the common object. It observed that there were no specific overt acts attributed against A5 to A9 with regard to the murder of the deceased and also any common object for unlawful gain. With those observations, it discharged A5 to A9. 12. Serious objections are raised by the State as well as the de facto complainant against the view taken by the court below and has been argued that A5 to A9 were present at the time of the murder attack and the material brought on record clearly disclosed the overt acts on their part and all the principles of law were misapplied by the court below and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners cited • State of Tamil Nadu V. N.Suresh Rajan , (2014) 11 SCC 709 • State of Bihar V. Ramesh Singh , AIR 1977 SC 2018 • Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi V. State of Maharashtra , 2008 CRI.L.J.3872 • State of Maharashtra V. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 14. As against the same, the respondents/ A5 to A9 contended that learned trial court appropriately applied its judicial mind and considered only the material that was produced by the prosecution and arrived at accurate conclusions and there is no warrant for interference. It is further argued that as per the charge sheet, the crime weapons/sickles were recovered by the police from a place where they were hidden and that discovery was pursuant to the statements of other accused and not these accused/ A5 to A9. That, there was no material to indicate there was unlawful assembly. 15. Learned counsel for respondents/accused cited • Sajjan Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2010) 9 SCC 368 • Vijay Pandurang Thakre V. State of Maharashtra , (2017) 4 SCC 377 • Ram Prakash Chadha V. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2024 SCC Online SC 1709 16. The strenuous submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents/ accused is that only when the material on record gives rise to grave suspicion, the accused could be charged on trial and a grave suspicion is different from mere suspicion. The strenuous submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents/ accused is that only when the material on record gives rise to grave suspicion, the accused could be charged on trial and a grave suspicion is different from mere suspicion. That A5 to A9, even according to the charge sheet, did not inflict any injury on the victim/ deceased. To attract section 149 IPC , there must be an active participation of all the persons with necessary criminal intention and they must hold to the common object and all that is absent in the case at hand. In this regard, learned counsel for respondents/ accused cited Vijay Pandurang Thakre V. State of Maharasht ra’s case , [supra7] ) . That in the absence of any legal evidence, framing of a charge is not possible. In order to frame a charge, the evidence collected must prima facie give rise to strong suspicion failing which the accused are entitled to be discharged. For this support is taken from the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Prakash Chadha V. State of Uttar Pradesh , [supra8] ) . Learned counsel for respondents submits that the learned trial court rightly relied on Sajjan Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation , [Supra 6] as it found from the material on record the possibility of holding two views and accordingly discharged A5 to A9. It is for these reasons, they pray for dismissal of these revisions. 17. An assembly of five or more persons is designated as "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is, among other things, to commit any offence (section 141 IPC ). Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly (section 142 IPC ). Joining an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons is an offence (section 144 IPC ). Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting (section 146 IPC ). Rioting with deadly weapons which weapons would likely to cause death is an offence (section 148 IPC ). Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting (section 146 IPC ). Rioting with deadly weapons which weapons would likely to cause death is an offence (section 148 IPC ). If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence (section 149 IPC ). When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act is said to have been a party to criminal conspiracy. Punishment for criminal conspiracy is in section 120 B IPC . The investigative allegation contained in the charge sheet in this case of rioting with murder and criminal intimidation is that all the accused with the common object of annihilation of Sri K.Muneppa/ deceased, went to the spot of offence by holding sickles and intercepted the victim and de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant intervened to prevent any further act on part of the accused, some of the accused/A5 to A9 showing their sickles threatened him and told him that he was not their target and still if he dared, he would be killed by them. Then the other accused attacked and brutally killed Sri Muneppa. The further allegation against A5 to A9 is that they instigated the remaining accused to kill Sri K.Muneppa. Sri S.Pulla Reddy/ LW.6 and Sri S.Sreenivasula Reddy/ LW.7 are stated to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Be it noted, the de facto complainant/ LW.1 was with the victim at the material point of time and he was also an eye witness. Statements of these three witnesses recorded by the investigation officer were that that the accused who physically attacked the victim shouted at the spot stating that he stood in the election against their candidate which they did not like. 18. The names of A5 to A9 are mentioned in the FIR and are mentioned in the statements of eye witnesses and are mentioned in the charge sheet. 18. The names of A5 to A9 are mentioned in the FIR and are mentioned in the statements of eye witnesses and are mentioned in the charge sheet. Their presence along with other accused is clearly visible from the record. The material on record is very clear that A5 to A9 as well as remaining accused were holding sickles. Those who physically attacked the victim used only those sickles and killed him. Presence of A5 to A9 who came to the spot along with other accused who physically attacked the victim is a fact that is clearly available from the material. The accused who killed the victim shouted that they intended to kill the victim only because he stood against the candidate set up by them was to the hearing of everyone including A5 to A9. Thus, the purpose of coming to the spot along with sickles and A5 to A9 remaining there at the spot even after hearing the words of the other accused and even while they were attacking the victim and still not leaving the place is a matter that has to be considered. If not, they were holding common object, they would have either stopped the other accused from physically hacking the victim or at least would have shouted at them not to indulge in such acts. The allegations as seen from the charge sheet and as seen from the statements of eye witnesses is that A5 to A9 as well as other accused left the place only after they were satisfied that Sri K.Munneppa suffered death. The expression “in prosecution of the common object” occurring in section 149 IPC postulates that the act must be the one which has been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly ( Vijay Pandurang Thakre’s case , [supra 7] ). The word “ground” used in section 227 CrPC did not mean a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial ( Ram Praksh ’s case , [supra 8] ). 19. In the light of the above principles and the facts available on record when the impugned order of the learned trial is assessed, it emerges at once that the learned trial court completely misdirected itself in applying the principles of law and in gazing the record. 19. In the light of the above principles and the facts available on record when the impugned order of the learned trial is assessed, it emerges at once that the learned trial court completely misdirected itself in applying the principles of law and in gazing the record. Even though there is no penal provision cited by the State in its charge sheet concerning criminal intimidation about A5 to A9, it is still within the power of the learned Sessions Judge to frame a charge if the acts alleged against A5 to A9 amounts to criminal intimidation. The court below cannot blink at facts. It is the solemn duty of the learned trial court to apply penal provisions for which necessary facts are available in the record. A penal provision of criminal intimidation not being cited in the charge sheet is no obstacle for the Sessions Judge to frame a charge. It was repeatedly recorded in the impugned order that A5 to A9 threatened the de facto complainant not to interfere and that if he still dared to do it, he would be killed. Even those facts mentioned by it did not alert the Additional Sessions Judge in applying its mind. Presence of A5 to A9 at the scene of offence was not explained. It is nobody’s case that A5 to A9 happened to be there as spectators. They were there along with other accused and they were there with deadly weapons in their hands and they were very much there knowing for what for they were there. That much is crystal clear from the statements of eye witnesses and the investigative conclusion of the State police. When the facts are clearly alleged there was no question of suspicion or grave suspicion. If the facts are vague or obscure only then the question of suspicion or grave suspicion occur. In the case at hand there was no question for someone to say that from the material one could hold a suspicion or grave suspicion. It is a case where facts are clearly alleged. From the facts that are clearly alleged one could say the arrival of all the accused including A5 to A9 and leaving the spot of offence by all of them together and the offence of murder committed in between these two events. It is a case where facts are clearly alleged. From the facts that are clearly alleged one could say the arrival of all the accused including A5 to A9 and leaving the spot of offence by all of them together and the offence of murder committed in between these two events. The fact that only some of the accused physically attacked and A5 to A9 did not physically attack the victim is a matter that still enables the court to put them on trial to find out the truth of the matter in the light of section 149 read with section 302 IPC . 20. In a criminal case, “two views” refers to the existence of two plausible explanations or interpretations of the material presented. If the material can be interpreted in two distinct ways, leading to different conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the accused, then we may say that there are alternate explanations to the same facts. In a case where the prosecution alleges that the accused intentionally killed the victim while the defence claims that the accused acted in self-defence, that is a case of self-defence versus murder. There one could find two views from the same material presented to the court. There could also be cases where the prosecution alleges that the accused by his reckless behaviour caused the victim’s death and the accused argues that the death was by virtue of a mere accident. Then the question of accidental death versus homicide are the two views that may emanate from the same material. It is in those cases, the two views present different interpretations of the same material. The learned trial Judge is completely oblivious of these fundamental principles. He finds difference between the versions alleged in the charge sheet and the version mentioned by witnesses and that discrepancy is stated by him as giving rise to two views. The error lies when he chose not to put the matter for trial so as to find out from the evidence, the real truth. He concluded saying that these two different versions give rise to different views. He, in the process, ignored the rule that at the stage of consideration of charging or discharging, he should not consider whether the material on record would lead to conviction or acquittal. This is not a case of absence of any legal evidence. He concluded saying that these two different versions give rise to different views. He, in the process, ignored the rule that at the stage of consideration of charging or discharging, he should not consider whether the material on record would lead to conviction or acquittal. This is not a case of absence of any legal evidence. The evidence of eye witnesses is a legal evidence. In complete ignorance of law and in total disregard to the facts, the trial court illegally exercised its discretion, and this court is unable to support such order. Material on record sufficiently enables a trial court to frame the necessary charges as against A5 to A9. Point is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, all the criminal revision cases are allowed. Order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 is set aside. This accused/ A5 to A9 shall appear before the court below and the court below shall frame appropriate charges against them and complete the trial of all the accused in S.C.No.141 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.