At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 2, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 02/2023 pertaining to FIR No. 129/2021 of Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 325/34, 447/34 & 341 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are cross cases between the parties and injured Subhash and Ramchander each received only two injuries in all. According to injury report of Ramchander, he received injury on his left knee which is non-vital part of his body and another one is simple in nature. As per injury report of Subhash, he received two injuries out of which, injury No. 1 is found to be grievous in nature that is on skull and temporal region. Counsel further argued that there was free fight between the parties and there was no repetition of blows, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Counsel submitted that previously the doctor opined that none of the injuries were dangerous to life, later on, Doctor opined that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life, therefore, charge for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC may be set aside against the petitioners.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injuries were received on the skull of one of the injured, which was found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly framed the charges which does not call for any interference.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. While framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that prima-facie, the act by accused irrespective of its result was done with such intention or knowledge and under the circumstances, as mentioned in the section 307 IPC. There may be cases where no injury is suffered by the victim but the act done by the accused would still fall within the ambit of Section 307 as the act alone coupled with intention or knowledge is sufficient. In the present case, from the material available on record it is evident that according to the injury report, injured Subhash received two injuries, out of which one injury is on his skull. Earlier, the doctor opined that head injury was grievous in nature but later upon seeking fresh opinion, the doctor opined that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and also dangerous to life. Therefore, the offence under Section 307/34 is prima facie made out against the petitioners.

6. 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 unrebutted 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.

7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below:

“(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determ