The court's decision emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to determine the guilt of the accused, but to evaluate if the material on record discloses the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

Het Singh Yadav, J. –

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.6.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2012, State Vs. Srinarayan Rai @ Piladi Rai and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 308, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. by which the application moved by the accused persons purported to be under Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been rejected.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of this criminal revision are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. against the revisionists alleging that they have beaten to pulp Vakil Rai (the injured) with sticks and other blunt objects because of previous hostility due to election rivalry. He sustained multiple severe injuries. The injury no. 1 was on his head and grievous in nature. The investigating officer having concluded investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons named in the F.I.R. (revisionists herein) under the aforementioned sections. Since the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is triable exclusively by a court of Session and therefore, the learned Magistrate concerned committed the case to the court of Session for trial. The revisionists, however, moved application under Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code before the trial Judge that all the accused persons have been framed in this case levelling general allegations due to party faction in the village and the injuries caused, as per medical opinion, were simple in nature. Thus, no prima facie case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against them. It is hardly, as argued, a case of voluntarily causing simple hurt punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, prayer was made to order to transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence in accordance with the procedure of warrant case instituted on the police report.

3. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the public prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon consideration of the record of the case, was of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the court of Session. He accordingly rejected the application vide the impugned order and directed to frame charges against the accused persons under sections as discerned in the charge-sheet.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and have also been taken through the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists in his submissions made a bid to assail the impugned order on factual as well as legal grounds. It is argued that Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code enacts that the court of Session upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the accused persons, is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively triable by the court of Session, he may frame charge against the accused and by order transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate concerned. Thereupon, such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure of the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report. Learned counsel vociferously argued that in this case, as per medical opinion and other material on record, prima facie, no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. appears to have been committed. The medical opinion on record disclosing that the injured sustained only 4 injuries caused by hard and blunt objects which are simple in nature and not dangerous to the life of the injured in any way. Although overt act had been attributed against each of the accused, who are eight in number and were having 'lathis' and other lethal weapons, only 4 injuries had