1. Heard Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner takes exception to an order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, directing framing of a Charge against him under Sections 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

4. Briefly stated the facts are that, the petitioner along with one more accused are charge-sheeted by Police Station, Panaji, alleging that by hatching a criminal conspiracy, the petitioner and other accused on 1st April, 2015 between 23.00 to 23.30 hours near Adarsh Colony Circle, Carnazalem, Goa, assaulted one Ronaldo Barretto, who is the brother of the complainant, by attacking on his head by means of an iron rod resulting into grievous hurt. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, framed a charge as above by stating that there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner.

5. I heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. He submits that there is no material on record in order to justify framing of Charge against the petitioner either under Section 120B or 307 of IPC. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that even the victim has not whispered anything, as regards the complicity of the petitioner, in the alleged offence. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a authorities of this Court reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J.774 in case of Arun Gulab Gawli Vs. State of Maharashtra and (2008)10 SCC 394 in case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Amonkar, submits that except the statement of the complainant, who stated that he had an information about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, there is nothing on record.

8. I have gone through the record as well as the statements of the witnesses including the medical report.

9. The complaint dated 2.3.2015 lodged by one Anthony Barretto, the brother of the injured victim, reveals that on 1st April, 2015 he received an information from his elder brother on a mobile-phone about the assault on his younger brother Ronaldo Barretto by Ganesh Venkatesh Panjal. After receiving an information, the complainant reached Campal Clinic Hospital immediately at 23.40 hours. It reveals from his complaint that said Ganesh Panjal had informed Ronaldo to come near Adarsh Colony around 23.00 hours. Accordingly, Ronaldo went near Adarsh Colony on his bike. Ronaldo returned to their restaurant at about 23.30 hours with head injury and informed his elder brother that he was assaulted by four persons along with Ganesh Panjal. The injured was immediately shifted to G.M.C., Bambolim from Campal Clinic, as he suffered serious head injuries. In the complaint, it is stated that thereafter the complainant came to know from some sources that along with Ganesh Panjal, one Rahul, (full name and address not known) and Govind i.e. the petitioner (whose full name and address also not known to the complainant) had common intention, who hatched criminal conspiracy to kill Ronaldo. This is the only material on record from which, it appears that even the complainant had not first-hand knowledge nor there is anything in his complaint as to from whom he gathered the information about the involvement of the petitioner in hatching conspiracy. It is not even his contention that the petitioner was involved in the actual assault.

10. Statement of the injured victim, which also came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 2nd April, 2015, reveals that he had no enmity with Ganesh Panjal or any other person. However, he does not know as to why Ganesh Panjal had assaulted him with an iron rod. His statement further indica