P. VIJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA & Anr.

1.2. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether E the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the · words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the F facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the G function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of s. 227, the judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the H 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused.,·; .. so~as to frame a charge against him. [Para 101 [86~C;;;f1L ~--: ,.- . '. . . · .. · ' 8 . 1.3. If on the basis_,_of mater_i,a'l:(jfi'·t~~o~d- thEtC~urt · .. could form an opinicH1 that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the C charges the probative value of the material on record D cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record . by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission df offen~; by the accused was pBssible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the .Court must E come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge. [Para 14] [90-A-D] F