IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing charges, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is enough to frame charges. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents to support its decision.

ORDER :

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/2019 by which the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307, 326, 323, 341, 324, 336, 427, 147, 148 & 149 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent Daljeet Singh gave a parcha bayan to the effect and when he and his cousin brother Kulveer Singh were going to the field, in the mid way, the present accused persons stopped them and launched an attack causing grievous injuries. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners before the competent court and thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur and after arguments on charge, charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offences.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners as none of the injuries are on vital parts of the body of injured therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had intention to cause death. The finding of the police will show that there are cross cases between the parties and both the parties received injuries. From the evidence it appears that it was the complainant party which was the aggressor and caused injuries to petitioners in the first instance followed by free fight. Thus, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent argued that the trial court after considering the injuries as well as statements of other witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. The fact with regard to who was the aggressor and who caused injuries first is a matter of trial and cannot be gone into at the stage of framing of charges, therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed.

5. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record.

6. As per statement of injured, all the accused came armed with weapons and attacked him. As per injury report, the injured received injuries on vital part of the body and injury no. 1 of Kulveer Singh is found to be grievous in nature. Both the parties have caused fire arm injuries and trial of the case is to be conducted in Sessions Court. It is settled proposition of law that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury should be capable of causing death or should be dangerous to life and only intention has to be seen. So, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 307 IPC, in the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record in this case. So far as the argument with regard to the complainant party being aggressor and there being cross cases is concerned, the same is a matter of adjudication during trial as challan of the case has been presented under Section 307 IPC against the complainant party as well.

7. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the un-rebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

8. In the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the judgment has laid down the pri