RAVI NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision application is to the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the present two petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been rejected and both the petitioners have been directed to appear physically on the next date for framing of charge against them.
(2.) BOTH the petitioners have been made accused in Tilaiya P.S. Case no. 09 of 2009 instituted under Section 302 I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Chowkidar that on 08.01.2009 while he was going to police station for his duty, he came to know that a dead body of an unknown person is lying on the eastern side of an over bridge. It is also alleged that the said unknown person was killed by gunshot. The police after registering the said case took up the charge of investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the two petitioners as indicated above.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the case was committed to Court of Sessions where both the petitioners filed the petition under Section 227 of the Code for their discharge on the ground that without any cogent material or the evidence available in the case diary, the court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The court below after providing opportunity to the petitioners as well as the State came to the conclusion that there appears to be strong prima facie circumstantial evidence for presuming that the accused persons/petitioners have committed the offence of murder as has been alleged by the prosecution, hence rejected the prayer of the two petitioners. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in the impugned order dealt with the submissions of the petitioners and also referred various paragraphs of the case diary before coming to the said conclusion. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and in fact the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and these two petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case on the ground of enmity and circumstances appearing against them though during investigation, the police failed to collect any direct evidence showing their complicity in the crime. It was also submitted that mere statement of one or two witnesses that the deceased had stayed in the house of the petitioners would not mean that the petitioners have participated in the alleged crime.;