Discharge at the charge stage upheld where co-accused confessions were unusable and no prima facie material linked the accused.

Discharge under Section 227 CrPC was upheld because the prosecution record, even if taken at face value, did not disclose sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The court reiterated that the discharge stage requires only a prima facie assessment and not a meticulous weighing of evidence; a strong suspicion can justify charge only where the materials show involvement on their face. Co-accused confessional statements were treated as post-arrest statements outside Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and were also regarded as hit by Section 30 in the connected proceedings. With no independent or corroborative material left, the revision challenging discharge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was rightly discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the materials relied upon by the prosecution, including the co-accused's confessional statements, did not constitute sufficient ground for proceeding.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court must consider whether the record and accompanying documents disclose sufficient ground for proceeding and not conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence. The Court applied the settled principle that a strong suspicion may justify framing of charge, but only where the materials, if accepted at face value, can show the accused's involvement. The confessional statements of the co-accused were found to be post-arrest statements and therefore outside the ambit of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They had also been treated as hit by Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the connected proceedings. Once excluded, no independent or corroborative material remained to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The discharge was justified, and the revision challenging it was liable to fail.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, discharge is warranted where the prosecution materials, even if accepted, do not disclose a prima facie case against the accused, and post-arrest confessional statements of co-accused cannot be used under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to supply the missing link.

---