Discharge under criminal procedure requires scrutiny of prosecution material alone; conjecture cannot replace a prima facie case.

At discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and cannot rely on defence material or conduct a roving inquiry. It may only sift the prosecution documents to see whether they disclose a prima facie case; if they do not, discharge must follow. The Supreme Court held that the record here disclosed no direct or inferable material showing an agreement or meeting of minds for criminal conspiracy or common intention, and the suspicion against the appellant rested on conjecture. No prima facie case being made out, the charge could not be sustained and discharge ought to have been allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court could consider defence material or had to confine itself to the prosecution record; and whether the materials placed by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or common intention against the appellant so as to justify framing of charge.

Issue (i): Whether, at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court could consider defence material or had to confine itself to the prosecution record.

Analysis: The governing rule is that the expression "the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith" means the prosecution material placed before the court. At the discharge stage, the court may sift the materials only to determine whether a prima facie case exists, but it cannot undertake a roving inquiry, weigh evidence as if in trial, or consider defence material. A discharge order must be based on the absence of sufficient ground for proceeding on the prosecution record alone.

Conclusion: The court was required to confine itself to the prosecution record and could not rely on defence material.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials placed by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or common intention against the appellant so as to justify framing of charge.

Analysis: The prosecution record did not contain any direct or even inferable material showing an agreement or meeting of minds between the appellant and the police officials for the alleged custodial death. The materials showed, at most, that the appellant had lodged the earlier robbery complaint and later informed the police about the missing employee's fate. The suspicion recorded by the courts below rested on conjecture rather than on prosecution material disclosing the essential ingredients of conspiracy or common intention.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out against the appellant; the charge could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The discharge application ought to have been allowed because the prosecution record did not disclose sufficient ground to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offences.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge, the court must restrict itself to the prosecution record and may frame a charge only where those materials disclose a prima facie case amounting to more than mere suspicion; conjecture or defence material cannot supply the missing foundation for prosecution.

---