MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in case arising out of FIR No.33 dated 24.04.2024 registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148, 149, 307, 201 and 120B of IPC at Police Station IT City, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby charges under Sections 120B, 307, 324, 323, 506, 201 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC had been framed as against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Jashandeep Singh alleging that on 23.04.2024, he alongwith his brother Harshdeep Singh had gone to attend their school. After the school hours, he had come out of the school and was standing at the bus-stand of Village Bakarpur whereas his brother was inside the school. In the meanwhile 6-7 youths riding on some bikes reached there. They were in Nihang attire. One of them struck a blow with a stick which he was carrying while passing through him. The complainant raised alarm and then the other boys who were accompanying that youth, also opened an assault upon him thereby causing injuries on his knees, back and left leg. He also sustained injuries with sword at the hands of one of them. His brother had reached at the spot and then all of them fled away while extending threats to kill him. Initially a case under Sections 148, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC was registered. During the course of the investigation, offence under Section 307 of IPC was added. The petitioners were arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. Challan has been presented in the Court.

3. Vide order dated 16.02.2026, the petitioners were charge-sheeted for commission of aforementioned offences. Feeling aggrieved from the fact that they have been charge-sheeted under Section 307 of IPC as well, this petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC are not at all attracted against them. The injuries which were sustained by the complainant have been opined to be simple in nature. There is no material on record to show that the petitioners had any intent to cause the death of the victim or any knowledge that the injury so sustained could have caused his death. The injuries were on the non-vital part of the body. The medical evidence does not support the allegation as to the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The petitioners were not even named in the FIR. The allegations as levelled against them are general and vague in nature. While framing the charges under Section 307 of IPC, the learned Trial Court did not take all these points into consideration. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent to which charge under Section 307 of IPC has been framed and the revision petition deserves to be accepted.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioners in connivance with each other had voluntarily caused injuries with blunt as well as sharp-edged weapons upon the person of the complainant with an intent to cause his death after wrongfully restraining him and also criminally intimidated him. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial court was required to consider the probabilities of the case and not to conduct a mini-trial. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court and deserves to be upheld.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has gone through the record.

7. Before delving into the correctness of the impugned