H. C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.09.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. - III, Jamshedpur whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the case relates to the murder of one Dr. Emmanuel Mathews Kacchap, whose dead body was found in his car and the case was instituted against unknown. It also appears that the petitioner was living with the deceased as his wife and his first wife was also alive. It also appears that during investigation suspicion was raised against the petitioner and from the car, from which the dead body of the deceased was recovered, a long black hair was also recovered. It appears that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner after investigation of the case and the cognizance was also taken against the petitioner and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioner filed the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order, holding that there are material available in the case diary which raised suspicion against the petitioner. The Court has also considered that it is well settled law that while assessing the 'sufficient ground' for proceeding against the accused, it is not at all necessary for the Court to enter into pros and cons of the matter, weighing and balancing the evidence and where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court shall be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. Learned Court below, accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and framed charge against the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the material against the petitioner in the case diary has not been discussed in detailed by the Court.;