ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.46/2016 whereby the learned trial Court has directed to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 /34. 341/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case, apparently no case for framing charges under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners, as neither there was any intent of the petitioners to kill the victim, nor the injuries caused the victims are such so as to bring the matter within the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC. Learned counsel further submits that he does not object to the framing of other charges as directed by the learned trial Court.

3. The office report dated 23.07.2019 reflects that the notice upon the respondent No.2 has been duly served, however, no-one is putting appearance on his behalf since inception.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Govt. Advocate and perused the impugned order as well as the certified copies of the charge which included the statements of the witnesses and the injury reports of the victims.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it is not emanating from anywhere that there was any previous animosity between the parties or there was any reason for the petitioners to kill the victims. On the contrary, it is reflecting that the parties are close relatives to each other and they are having joint possession over the agricultural field. On 28.06.2016, the incident occurred suddenly on a trivial issue of ploughing the field through a tractor in the alleged share of the complainant party. The petitioners' party allegedly made an assault over the complainant party, as a consequence of which, the victims Babu Khan, Mehboob Khan and Dhapudi received some injuries.

7. The injury report of Babu Khan revealing that injury No.1 is a bruise on parietal region. The injury No.2 was a swelling on temporal region on the right side of the head. As per Medical Officer, both the injuries received by Babu Khan were simple in nature and caused by a blunt object

8. The Medical Officer noticed a lacerated wound on the head of victim Mehboob Khan as also swelling on the dorsal aspect of the left hand and swelling on the left scapula. As per the Medical Officer all the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon.

9. The injury report of victim Ms. Dhapudi shows simple swelling on her left shoulder which was opined to be simple in nature and caused by a blunt object.

10. Neither, the circumstances of the case nor the injuries allegedly received by the victims bringing the matter within the ambit and scope under Section 307 of the IPC because there is no material on record from which an interference can be drawn that the petitioners were having an intent to kill the victims. Rather it appears that the parties skirmished in a spur of moment without there being any pre-meditation or pre-plan. The dispute between the parties is of not so magnitude for which it can be said that the petitioners wanted to murder the vi