Framing of charge requires only grave suspicion; SC restored charge against one accused and confirmed another's discharge.

At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court need not weigh evidence meticulously or decide guilt finally; it must only see whether the material raises a strong or grave suspicion and reasonably connects the accused with the offence. Applying that standard, the SC held that the High Court interfered too readily with the charge against Dilip, as the surrounding circumstances, medical evidence, post-mortem findings and witness statements justified trial. In contrast, the material against Nathumal went no further than suspicion and did not justify a criminal charge, so his discharge was confirmed. The prosecution thus continued only against Dilip.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the charge framed against Dilip and discharging him at the stage of consideration under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether Nathumal was liable to be put on trial on the material on record.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the charge framed against Dilip and discharging him at the stage of consideration under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or determine guilt conclusively. The material has only to be seen to ascertain whether it raises a strong or grave suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and whether, if the evidence is generally accepted, it would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. The trial court had considered the surrounding circumstances, medical evidence, post-mortem findings, and witness statements indicating a hostile matrimonial environment and possible involvement of Dilip. The High Court failed to attach due weight to these materials and interfered too readily with the order framing charge.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in discharging Dilip; the charge framed against him was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether Nathumal was liable to be put on trial on the material on record.

Analysis: Mere failure to discharge a moral obligation or general family responsibility is not enough to frame a criminal charge. The material against Nathumal did not go beyond suspicion and did not provide sufficient ground for proceeding to trial. The trial court's view that the allegations did not justify framing of charge was supported by the record.

Conclusion: Nathumal was not liable to be put on trial and his discharge was confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of restoring the prosecution against Dilip, while the discharge of Nathumal stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court must see only whether the material, if generally accepted, raises a strong or grave suspicion and reasonably connects the accused with the offence, and the High Court should interfere with a sessions court's framing of charge only in cases of glaring injustice.

---