Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

Both the revision petitions have been filed against the same order dated 25.03.2014, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter "the trial court") whereby the learned trial court has framed charges against the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 308 or in the alternative under Sections 308/149, 323 or in the alternative under Sections 323/149, 325 or in the alternative under Sections 325/149. 342 & 365 IPC.

2. Earlier the learned trial court vide its order dated 06.01.2014 framed the charges against the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Against which revision petition No. 105/2014 was filed by some of the accused-petitioners which was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 28.01.2014 with the direction to the trial court to pass a fresh order of framing of charge after hearing the parties. In terms of the directions of this Court, the learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2014. Hence these petitions.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that on being examined by Radiologist, injury Nos.1, 2 & 3 suffered by the injured Adu Ram are grievous in nature and injury Nos.4, 5 & 6 are simple in nature and injury Nos.1, 3 & 4 suffered by the injured Roopa Ram are grievous in nature and injury Nos.2, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are simple in nature on the non-vital part of their body. Counsel further argued that none of the injuries was caused by sharp edged weapon. From the nature of injuries and the fact that grievous injuries have not been caused on any vital part of the body of injured persons and there being no other evidence that the petitioners caused the injuries with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that by their act death caused, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The very essential ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC are not made out from the evidence available on record. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of this High Court in the cases of Dhola Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) RCC 896], Jabbar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2006 (3) R.Cr.D 74 (Raj.)] & Prabhu Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 616/2014, decided on 21.01.2015.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the injured Adu Ram and Roopa Ram have suffered multiple injuries which are sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 308 IPC.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 25.03.2014 as also material on record.

6. Before framing of charge, the Court is duty bound to see whether there is sufficient evidence to show existing of ingredients of offence. According to the evidence submitted by the investigating agency, in case the ingredients of the offence are not made out, then the court is unjustified in framing the charge for that particular offence. However in the instant case, the injured Adu Ram and Roopa Ram suffered multiple injuries. As per the injury reports, injured Adu Ram and Roopa Ram have suffered following injuries :

	Injuries suffered by Adu Ram	Injuries suffered by Roopa Ram
1.	PoP slob extending from right thigh to foot excluding toes	PoP slob extending from right shoulder to hand excluding fingers
2.	PoP slob extending from left thigh to foot excluding toes.	PoP slob extending from left mid arm to hand excluding fingers.
3.	PoP slob extending from left arm to hand excluding fingers.	PoP slob extending from left thigh to foot excluding toes.
4.	C/o pain and tenderness on whole head.	PoP slob extending from right thigh to foot excluding toes.
5.	C/o pain and tend