MANJU RANI CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, in S.T No. 196 of 2018 (State Vs. Ramu), Case Crime No. 577 of 2018, under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C., Police Station - Ghanghata, District - Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby application of the revisionist for discharge was rejected and revisionist was summoned. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. Entire record has been perused.
(2.) All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
(3.) Before proceeding to adjudge the validity of the impugned order it may be useful to cast a fleeting glance to some of the representative cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have expatiated upon the legal approach to be adopted at the time of framing of the charge or at the time of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged. It shall be advantageous to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 (4) SCC 39 which are as follows :- "4. Under S. 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and State by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter, comes at the initial stage, the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either u/s. 227 or u/s. 228 of the Code. If "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", so enjoined by s. 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which ..................... (b) in exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused," as provided in S. 228. ;