1. The opposite parties, 4 (four) in number, were committed to the court of Session to face a trial under S.302/34, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, has come to the conclusion that no charge could be framed against the accused-opposite parties under that section of law. Instead, a charge under S.323. Penal Code, was framed against the accused-opposite parties and the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a trial as provided by law. The State has come up in revision as the impugned order amounts to discharge under S.302/34. IPC.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is founded on, if I may say so with respect, a misconception that the death in question was caused due to any particular assault, which has been repeatedly described in the impugned order as a fatal blow. This would be apparent if we look at the post-mortem report which does not show any particular injury as such to be responsible for the death of Dilip Kumar. The autopsy rather reveals that the deceased had 12 (twelve) injuries on his person of which 11 (eleven) were abrasions on different parts of the body and one lacerated injury 2.5 c.m. just