https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311405 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. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311405 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311405