JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 22.02.2021 & 23.02.2021, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Desuri, District Pali, in Criminal Case No. 15/2016 whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 323 in the alternative 323/34, 325 in the alternative 325/34, 308 in the alternative 308/34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that none of the injured received by the injured are on any vital part of body and in this view of the matter, the act of the petitioners will not be prima facie covered by the provisions of Section 308 IPC so as to fasten criminal liability against them for attempting to commit culpable homicide of respondent No. 2. Counsel further submits that as per the definition of Section 308 IPC, if any act is committed by any accused with an intention or knowledge that he by his act would cause death amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder whereas in the present case there is nothing on record which suggest that the petitioners or any of the petitioner caused any injury on any vital part of the body of any of the injured. In these circumstances, charges framed against the petitioners may be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record. According to the injury report of respondent No. 2-Pushpendra Mali, he received five injuries in all and according to the X-Ray reports multiple fractures were inflicted on right lower limb including Tibia-Fibula as well as ankle joint and the injuries were found to be grievous in nature. Likewise as per injury report of Vimalchand he received one injury and fracture of ulna (left side).

5. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.

6. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below:

"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible an