Hon’ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.—Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gonda in Session Trial No. 210 of 2016, State v. Shiv Balak Pandey and others, arising out of case crime No. 220 of 2015 under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 and 308 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City, District Gonda, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application for discharge moved by the accused and fixed the case for framing of charge under Sections 147, 307/149, 323/149, 325/149, 504 and 506 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that First Information Report was registered on 18.3.2015 against the petitioners at case crime No. 220/2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 and 147 IPC with allegation that on 17.3.2015 when complainant Sushila Devi alongwith her husband Pawan Kumar Mishra, Hari Ram Yadav and Hamid was coming back from Gonda by Car No. PB10G 5535 and at about 9.00 p.m. they were waiting for opening of the railway crossing near Soni Gumati, Shiv Balak Pandey who is inimical with the complainant, alongwith his sons Upendra Nath and Jitendra Nath came and beaten her driver and Hamid and got them fled away. They also dragged her husband from the Car forcibly and beaten him by iron rod and hockey. They also put her husband on the railway track so that he may come under the train. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 147, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, which is pending trial. Thereafter the application for discharge was moved by the accused stating therein that there is no allegation that there was intention of the accused to commit murder of the complainant or her husband. Injuries were found simple. The Doctor has not stated the injuries to be dangerous which could have caused the death of injured, hence the accused cannot be charged under Section 307 IPC.

4. Learned trial Court has rejected the application for discharge holding that the evidence on record shows that the injuries of the injured were grievous in nature. According to the statement of Doctor, the injured got unconscious and death could have been caused due to this injury if it was serious in nature.

5. Learned trial Court also held that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial Court is not required to scrutinize the evidence on record microscopically, rather it is to be seen whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and to frame the charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the evidence on record, there was no intention of the accused to commit murder of the injured. It is also submitted that the accused were armed with other deadly weapons which were not being used. They were armed with country made pistol, but no fire-arm injury was found on the body of the injured neither it was alleged that any firm arm injury was caused. It is further submitted that the statement of Gateman was recorded by two investigating officers on different dates. At one place, he has not stated the name of the accused, who have put the injured on the railway track, while after change of the investigating officer, supplementary statement was recorded wherein he has stated that the accused have put the injured on the railway track so that by moving train his body can be cut in two pieces and it is presumed that it is a case of accident. It is further submitted that initially medical report did not show any grievous injury on the body of the injured. After three months, the medical board was constituted and the medical report was given by the medical board. It is further submitted that according to the statement of the complaina