The interpretation of 'grievous injury' under Sections 325 and 326, IPC, and the application of principles guiding the framing of charges were central to the judgment.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioners have challenged the order dated 210.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thana Gazi, Alwar, whereby he has framed the charges for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 341, 325, 326, 504 read with Section 149, IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 012.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar whereby he has confirmed the charge order dated 210.2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.2004 one Shri Suresh Chand filed a report at Police Station Narainpur, Alwar, wherein he claimed that the accused petitioners came with deadly weapon and assaulted his mother, his close relative and him whereby they sustained injuries. On the basis of the said report, a former FIR was registered for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, IPC. The injured, specially, Smt. Somvati, who is said to have sustained a grievous injury, was initially medically examined on 11.2004. Accordingly to the Injury Report, she had received four injuries by a blunt weapon. Subsequently, on 011.2004 she was re-examined by a Medical Board. However, the Medical Board did not give any opinion about the nature of weapon used to cause the injury. On 211.2004, a Dental Expert, who opined that her upper left incisor tooth was fractured and this injury is grievous in nature, examined her. He also claimed that the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, the police added the offences under Sections 325 and 326, IPC while filing the charge-sheet. Later on, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed the charges vide order dated 210.2005 as aforementioned. Since, the petitioners were aggrieved by the charge order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 012.2005, the revision petition was dismissed and the charge order was upheld as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before us.

.3. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that it is not the nature of the injury, which is the deciding factor for an offence under Section 326, IPC, but it is the nature of the weapon used to cause the injury, which is material. According to the statement of Smt. Somvati, she was hit by a "Lathi" on her face. Thus, the injury to the tooth was caused by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp edged weapon. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, for an offence under Section 326, IPC it is essential that a sharp edged weapon or a lethal weapon be used to

.cause the injury. Since, in the present case a blunt weapon has been used according to the injured herself , the ingredients of Section 326, IPC are conspicuously missing. Hence, according to learned Counsel, the charge for offence under Section 326, IPC is misplaced.

.4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has argued that it is the nature of the injury, which is the deciding factor. In case, a grievous injury is caused either by a blunt or a sharp edged weapon, then the case will be covered under Section 326, IPC. According to Section 320, the fracture of a tooth comes under the definition of "grievous injury". Therefore, according to him, the ingredient of Section 326, IPC is clearly made out.

.5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.

6. The framing of a charge is not merely a formality, but it is a judicious act wherein the Judicial Officer should apply his mind to the evidence in order to see whether ingredients of the offence exist or not. Although, a detailed and meticulous examination of the evidence is unwarranted, but nonetheless some sifting of the evidence is necessary to see whether the essential ingredients of an offence exists or not. In case, the essential ingredients of an offence are missing or in case two views are possible, then the charge for the said offence should not be framed. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., 1979 (3