JUDGMENT

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Special Case No.41/2022 by which the charges under Sections 294, 148, 452, 450, 324, 323/149, 326/149, 323, 323/149 (six counts), 506 Part - II of IPC have been framed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants are merely aggrieved by the charge framed by the Trial Court under Section 326 of IPC. By referring to the opinion given by the District Prosecution Officer, Datia, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the offence under Section 326 of IPC was added only on the opinion of District Prosecution Officer which was to the effect that since the complainant has suffered fracture of tibia and fibula bone of left leg which was caused to him by an iron rod and since an iron rod is a dangerous weapon, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out.

3. By referring to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu vs. State of M.P. decided on 3.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.1956/2008 and judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Bijender @ Naushad vs. State decided on 13.2.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.414/2013, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that whether the weapon of offence was a deadly weapon or a dangerous weapon has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalization can be done. It is submitted that since the assault was made on the left leg of the complainant, therefore, there was no intention to cause death of the complainant. Under these circumstances, an iron rod cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon.

4. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that roving enquiry is not required at the stage of framing of charge. Even a grave suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges against the accused persons.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The applicants have not disputed that the complainant had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula bone of left leg. The only contention of the counsel for the applicants is that since an iron rod cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon, therefore, at the most an offence under Section 325 of IPC would be made out.

7. It is well established principle of law that at the stage of framing of charges, roving enquiry is not permissible and mere a grave suspicion is sufficient to frame a charge. Furthermore, if a person is tried for a heinous offence, then he can always be convicted for a lessor offence and vice versa it is not possible. It is not the case of the applicants that no charge can be framed for causing fracture of tibia and fibula bone of left leg of the complainant. The only contention is that at the most an offence under Section 325 of IPC would be made out.

8. Whether the applicants are guilty for committing an offence under Section 326 of IPC or an offence under Section 325 of IPC is a disputed question of fact which can be decided by the Trial Court.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court by framing charge under Section 326/149 of IPC.

10. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.