At the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused.

Order :

1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali whereby learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308, 332, 353/120B IPC .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, names of the petitioners were not mentioned and no specific averments have been made by the injured in their statements against the present petitioners. Only omnibus allegations have been made against them. Counsel further submits that no injury reports were prepared in this case. Thus, the learned trial court while passing the impugned order of framing charge has ignored the aforesaid aspects of the matter and committed grave error in framing the charge against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The impugned order of framing charge is per-se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that the order impugned of framing charge against the petitioners is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

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

5. It is well settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings, evidence is not required to be analyzed, as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. It is also well settled that at this stage of the proceedings only the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation, which has been produced alongwith the charge-sheet, is required to be considered.

6. In his statement, injured Dharma Ram has mentioned name of the accused-petitioners and according to his injury report, he received total four injuries, out of which injury No.1 is found to be grievous in nature. Injured Devgiri specifically deposed in his statement that the accused persons including the petitioners came and caused injuries. According to his injury report, Devgiri sustained two injuries in all. The statements of the injured are corroborated by the medical evidence. In these circumstances, prima facie there are sufficient grounds available before the trial court to frame the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308, 332, 353/120B IPC .

7. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners.

8. Thus, the revision petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.