- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-1-2000 passed in Session trial No. 95 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur by which he framed charges for offences under Sections 307/149 and 323/149,1. RC. in respect of each of the injured Sunder Lal, Rakesh Kumar and Smt. Shyam Bai and also for offence under Section 147, I. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri S. P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicants and the A. G. A. opposite party No. 4 has not ap peared in spite of service of notice and therefore, he could not be heard. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the of fence under Sections 323 and 324, I. P. C. only is made out from the documents on record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in framing the charges under Sections 307/149,323/149 and 147, I. P. C. I have considered the arguments. The F. I. R. was lodged by Rakesh Kumar injured. According to him the ac cused assaulted him and his family mem bers by Lathis and Iron rods. As already said, three persons received injuries. The first is Smt. Shyam Bai to whom two in jures were caused, out of which one is lacerated wound on the heard. The other injured is Sunder Lal to whom five injuries were caused, out of which one is lacerated wound on the right side of the ear and the other injuries are on non-vital parts. The third injured is Rakesh Kumar to whom five injuries were caused. One contusion is on the back of the chest and the other injury is also contusion below the first injury.
(3.) SOME of the injuries were caused on vital parts. It is no doubt true that no bone injury was found and all the injuries were simple. For this reason at this stage, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit murder and the offences under Sections 323 and 324,1. P. C. only is made out. This question can be decided after the evidence in this case. I do not find any illegality in the order. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;