The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. if they could not be attributed with the knowledge or intention of causing injuries that could prove fatal.

1. By way of this revision preferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to assail the order dated 22.8.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur whereby, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325/34, 308, 308/34 I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel Shri Jakhaniya restricted his arguments to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C. He urges that the sole injured Sohan Ram suffered 7 superficial and trivial injuries on his person in the incident at hour. Of the 7 injuries, one on the right leg was opined to be grievous as there was a fracture of right lower ? part of fibula bone. Out of the 7 injuries, there was abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on occipital region of the injured. He thus, urges that the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. because neither knowledge nor intention to cause such injury which could prove fatal can be attributed to the petitioners in view of the nature and location of the injuries inflicted to the injured. He thus craves for acceptance of the revision and urges that the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Solanki representing the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that as the petitioners inflicted numerous injuries including a head injury to the injured, the trial court rightly framed charge under Section 308 I.P.C. against them.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

5. The injured Sohan Ram suffered the following injures in the incident as per the injury report dated 15.6.2015:-

After examination of MLX X Ray plates No. 8924/15/6115 there are fracture of Rt Lower 1/3 part of fibula bones. So injury No. 1 is grievous in nature."

6. On going through the description of the injuries, it is apparent that the sole injury on the head of the injured was 0.5 x 0.5 cm and was not having any depth whatsoever. Thus, apparently, the injury was trivial and superficial. The other injuries were all located on the legs of the injured.

7. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the accused cannot be attributed either the knowledge or the intention of causing such injuries to the injured which could prove fatal so as to make them liable for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C.

8. Resultantly, the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The impugned order to that extent is per-se illegal.

9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent the trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. in the alternative for the offence under Section 308/34 I.P.C. The accused petitioners are discharged of the said offence. Rest of the charges are maintained. Since the accused have been discharged from the sole offence triable by a