Honble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In these proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C., one out of the three accused in the case complains that the Trial Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court, Jaunpur has framed a charge under Sections 308/34, 504, 506 and Section 323/34, I.P.C., while according to the doctor, the injuries sustained by the two injured ladies are simple in nature and, therefore, a charge under Section 308, I.P.C. was unjustified and charge should have been framed under Section 323, I.P.C. and the Trial should have taken place before the Magistrate.

2. I have heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3. This argument was raised before the Trial Judge, which he dispelled by his order and maintained that it was an appropriate case for framing a charge under Section 308, I.P.C. because the injury was on the head, which is a vital part and could have been fatal though fortunately it did not prove to be so.

4. This controversy could have been easily reconciled if the doctor had advised an X-ray and the X-ray was thereafter performed, from which it could be ascertained whether there is any fract