The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.

ORDER :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1.The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sangaria whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 307 /34 , 341 /34 , 323 /34 , 324 /34 , 326 /34 IPC .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the injury report of injured Mahesh, he received three injuries in all, out of which Injury No.2 which is caused on his ring finger, is found to be grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Counsel submits that all the injuries were on the non-vital part of the body of the injured Mahesh. In such circumstance, the petitioner. But the learned trial court, in a mechanical manner, has framed the charge for offence under Section 307 /34 IPC against the petitioners. Thus, the impugned order of framing charge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and contended that the injuries were caused with kasi by the petitioners, which is a sharp edged weapon. The petitioners were supposed to caused injuries on the head of the injured, but the injured raised his hand to save himself and therefore, the injury was caused on his hand. This shows the intention of the petitioners to murder the injured person.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.

5. It is settled proposition of law that a Court, while framing charge, is under an obligation to fully advert to the material available on record and not to blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. The framing of charge is the edifice of the entire trial and therefore the court must explain the charges framed against an accused person.

6. Upon perusal of the injury report of the injured Mahesh, it is evident that the findings align with the assertions made by the petitioner. Specifically, it is noted that all the injuries are located on non-vital parts of the body and with the exception of injury No.2, the remaining injuries are categorized as simple in nature. Thus, the offence under Section 307 /34 IPC is not made out against the petitioners.

7. Upon examining the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has acted in a mechanical manner while framing charge for offence under Section 307 /34 IPC and has not made any endavour to spell out the reasons for framing charge for the said offence against the petitioners. Hence, learned trial Court has committed manifest error of law and fact in framing charge for offence under Section 307 /34 IPC .

8. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside to the extent of framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 307 /34 IPC . Rest of the charges shall remain intact.

9. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

10. Stay application is also decided.