The second accused in SC.No.24/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha is the revision petitioner herein. She is the wife of the first accused in the said case. The offences alleged against her and her husband are under Sections 120B, 302 and 324 IPC. The prosecution case is that as part of a conspiracy hatched by the revision petitioner and her husband to do away with one Manoj, the first accused took him under some pretext to the place of incident where Manoj was stabbed to death by the first accused. The alleged incident happened at about 5.20 pm. on 25.1.2011. The crime was registered on the first information statement given by the father of the deceased. After effective investigation the police filed final report in the case.
2. Pending the prosecution the petitioner herein made an application before the trial court as Crl.MP.No.1861/2013 praying for discharge. After hearing both sides in detail the learned IVth Addl.Sessions Judge dismissed the said application on the finding that it is a matter for decision on trial whether the petitioner had any complicity in the alleged act of offence, as conspirator, or otherwise. The said dismissal order dated 30.5.2013 is under challenge in this revision.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in detail and perused the case records. The learned counsel cited some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the powers of the court to make order of discharge. In Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2008(10) SCC 394) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the materials produced by the prosecution will make some suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the court will be justified in making an order of discharge. In P.Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another (2010(2) SCC 398) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused, and in such case it would be a waste of time to frame charge. However, in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010(9) SCC 368) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering application for discharge the Judge is not expected to analyse all the materials including the pros and cons, or the reliability or acceptability of the materials produced by the prosecution.
4. One ground on which the revision petitioner seeks discharge is that her name is not there in the first information statement, or that she is not seen specifically implicated as accused in the FIR. Of course, the prosecution does not have a case that any act was committed by her along with her husband at the scene of accident. A perusal of the prosecution records will show that during investigation the police could collect necessary materials, and those materials include some circumstances of conduct and conversations between the petitioner and her husband. Whether those materials are admissible in evidence, or whether those materials like telephone conversations etc., will practically prove a case, is a matter for decision on trial I find that the findings of the court below are absolutely correct.
5. As already stated the police has in fact, collected some materials by way of some circumstances against the petitioner. Whether she had any complicity as conspirator or otherwise, will be decided by the trial court. I find that the application made by the revision petitioner for discharge was rightly dismissed by the trial court. I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety for interference in the order.
In the result, this revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, (Judge)
Kvs/-
-// true copy //-
PA TO JUDGE.