1. This application under section 482 CrPC is directed against the order framing charges passed by the learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.738/2014 dated 3.9.2015 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act.

2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the incident took place on 24.3.2014. The complainant is a member of Bihar Vikas Samitee, Yadav Palace, Banganga. Samitee purchased two plots in Yadav Palace Colony measuring 1200 sq.ft. in all from one Jagjivan. The accused Manoj Karosiya claimed possession over the property and he was threatening the members of the Samitee that the plot belonged to him and when the Samitee started construction of a community hall over the property, he came there and used abusive language against them. About 32-40% gathered on the spot and looking to them, the accused persons went away. Subsequently, at about 9:30 in the night, he came on the spot armed with fire arms along with other accused persons. Accused Santosh Thakur fired gun shot over the members, however, no one was hurt. Subsequently, the persons gathered on the spot tried to chase them away and during the chaos, somebody hit on head of Ranjeet by a wooden plank. The complainant was hit by a stone and while they were fleeing away another shot was fired.

3. Learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned order prays that the charges framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge are correct and do not require any interference by this Court.

4. According to the medical report, the injured suffered simple injuries. Only because a fire arm was used, a charge under section 307 IPC was framed.

5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the application submits that for framing charge under section 307 IPC, intention of the parties is to be seen in the present case. According to him, the fire arms were used. The accused persons came on the spot armed with fire arms, and therefore, their intention to cause death was apparent.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another [1979 CriLJ154]. The Hon'ble apex Court observed as under :-

“The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.”

7. He also places reliance on orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Revision No.12/2016 dated 22.1.2016 and Criminal Revision No.740/2016 dated 30.6.2016.

8. In the present case, it is not disputed that simple injuries were caused to the injured persons and the charge under section 307 IPC was framed as fire arms were used during the incident.

9. However, after due consideration, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case are different than that of the case of Prafulla Kumar (supra), and other orders passed by this Court in various cases. The accused persons went away from the spot first, and subsequently, they came back armed with fire arms. Gun shots were also fired and as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, gun shots we