Eyewitness testimony and ante-mortem injuries create sufficient grave suspicion to frame a murder charge.

The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 4 February 2015 rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC in a prosecution arising from Khagaria (Chitragupta Nagar) P.S. Case No. 122 of 2012.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner ordered co-accused persons to kill the informant’s family; they allegedly assaulted the informant’s mother, who later died while being taken to Patna for treatment.

The petitioner relied on an RTI response stating that the deceased had not been admitted to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria, and on the post-mortem opinion attributing death to cardio-respiratory failure due to COPD.

The State relied on two ante-mortem abrasions recorded in the post-mortem report and the informant’s account as an eyewitness.

The police had filed a charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 341, 504 and 302 IPC.

Whether the material on record disclosed sufficient ground to frame charges against the petitioner, including under Section 302 IPC, despite his arguments based on the hospital record and post-mortem opinion.

Whether the order rejecting discharge under Section 227 CrPC warranted interference by the High Court.

Section 227 CrPC empowers the court of session to discharge an accused where there is insufficient ground to proceed.

At the charge stage, the court considers whether the record provides sufficient ground to proceed; the judgment refers to the principle that a charge may be framed on the basis of suspicion and that discharge is an exception, while trial is the rule.

The prosecution invoked Sections 147, 148, 341, 504 and 302 IPC, and the High Court assessed whether the material—including the eyewitness account and the post-mortem findings—was sufficient to proceed to trial.

The Court found that the informant, who was the deceased’s son, claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and attributed to the petitioner an order directing the co-accused to kill the deceased.

The post-mortem report recorded ante-mortem external injuries, which the State relied on as supporting the allegation of assault.

Considering this material, the Court held that there was more than grave suspicion sufficient to frame charges.

The petitioner’s reliance on the RTI response and the medical opinion did not justify discharge at that stage.

It dismissed the petition as devoid of merit and directed that the judgment be communicated to the trial court with the trial-court record, if any.