N.A. Britto, J.

1. The applicant herein is accused no.7 in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2007. In this revision, the applicant has challenged the Order dated 11-2-2009 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao by which charge has been ordered to be framed against him under Sections 450, 307, 120B, 201, 182 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 r/w 25 and 5 r/w 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Charge has been ordered to be framed against the present accused, inter alia, observing that:

The variance in the statements of the injured including that, that the accused no.7 had contacted him on his mobile blaming him for stopping the loading work and the threats purportedly issued that he would show him through A-1/Rajesh would have to be considered at the time of the trial and not at this prima facie stage where a roving inquiry by weighing the pros and cons is neither warranted nor justified. The inadequacy or shortcoming of the Investigating Agency to pinpoint the call details too can be dealt with at the stage of trial.

2. There is no dispute that an attempt was made on the life of Mariano Mascarenhas who is now being cross-examined before the trial Court, on 16-2-2006 at Rafael Bar at Xelvona. Initially, it appears that the statement of the said Mariano Mascarenhas was recorded on 21-2-2006 in which he has suspected one Solapurkar who since then was released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That statement was recorded by one Police Officer by name Kadam of Curchorem Police Station. Certain developments taken place thereafter led to the suspension of the said Kadam and transfer of the investigations to Crime Branch, CID, Panaji, and thereafter the statement of the said Mariano Mascarenhas was recorded before a Magistrate on 21-4-2008 in which he suspected the present accused but stated that the threat was conveyed on phone. After investigations, a charge-sheet appears to have been filed against six accused and this was on or about 1-12-2007 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 11-12-2001.

3. An application for bail was filed by some of the other accused which came to be disposed of by Order dated 15-7-2008.

4. As a result of the orders passed in the said Bail Application the present applicant/A-7 appears to have been interrogated, and upon verification of the mobile of the present accused nothing appears to have been found against him. The applicant/A-7 was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on 30-8-2008 after a statement was made that he was required only for a formal arrest. Soon after the said Order dated 15-7-2008, the said Mariano Mascarenhas was examined before the Sessions Court on 28-7-2008. Subsequently, additional charge-sheet was filed against the present accused and thus he came to be implicated as A-7 in the said Sessions case.

5. In his evidence before the Sessions Court the said Mariano Mascarenhas has, inter alia, stated that "during his meeting with the said Timblo, he told him that he would teach him a lesson through Rajesh/A-1 as in his view he was instrumental in disrupting the transportation of ore on the ground of ore pollution".

6. There cannot be any iota of doubt that at present the present applicant/A-7 has been directly implicated in the case by the injured Mariano Mascarenhas in his evidence before the Court.

7. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the victim Mariano Mascarenhas and accused no.7/Sarvesh had settled a bill, two days prior to the incident towards the hire of machinery which Sarvesh/A-7 had taken from Mariano Mascarenhas and if that be the case, there was no reason for Sarvesh/A-7 to threaten the said injured Mariano. Learned Counsel submits that in case the said bill was settled, Sarvesh/A-7 could not have any grievance against the said Mariano or if at all Mariano could have a grievance it was only against Rajesh/A-1 to whom the contract of transportation was given, after the contract with the injured was terminated by the said Sarvesh/A-7. Learned Counsel further submits that the conflicting statements made by the said injured in his different statements show the falsity of his version and as such the prosecution has not made out a case of any suspicion against Sarvesh/A-7 much less of grave suspicion. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case reported in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh(: AIR 1977 SC 2018 [LQ/SC/1977/239] ) and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra(2008 ALL MR 3222(S.C.)).

8. In the first case, the Apex Court has stated that strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial, but at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the second case, the Apex Court in relation to a conspiracy has stated that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators, and, therefore the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible. The Apex Court has also stated that the test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible.

9. There is no doubt that there is slight divergence in the statement of the injured as recorded on 21-4-2008, and now before the Court but that would be a matter to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged nor any weight required to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. This is also a law stated by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh(supra). In other words, the probative value of the evidence given is not required to be gone into. Sarvesh/A-7 is sufficiently implicated by the injured, both in his statement recorded on 21-4-2008 as well now on oath before the learned trial Court and that certainly raises more than great suspicion of the involvement of the present accused.

10. In the circumstances, therefore, I find that the impugned Order could not be faulted. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. Learned Counsel Shri P. D. Rajadhyax on behalf of the applicant prays for stay of the Judgment for a period of three weeks to enable the applicant to approach the Apex Court. Prayer granted.