S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No3, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 350 of 2010 State v. Jai Pal and others arising out of crime No. 147 of 2009, P.S. Jahangirpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby charge un­der sections 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was framed against the revisionists.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revision­ists submitted that all the three injuries sustained by injured Raj Pal Singh were found to be simple and thus offence under section 308 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out and the case is covered by section 323 I.P.C. only. The contention is that the learned Trial Court committed illegality in framing the charge under section 308 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. submitted that on the basis of material on record, charge un­der section 308 I.P.C. is made out. In the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that on 22.7.2009 at about 11:30 a.m., accused Jaipal called Raj Pal Singh, father of the complainant. When Raj Pal Singh went there, Jaipal gave spade blows on his head. On medical examination, eight injuries were found on the person of the injured, out of which, three injuries were on head. Even spade blows on the head of the in­jured prima facie reveal that intention of the revisionists was to cause atleast such an injury which could cause death. Though the accused may not have any intention to cause death, but such knowledge can be attributed to the accused that causing in­jury on head by a spade might cause death of the injured. It is immaterial whether on medical examination such injuries were found simple.
(3.) ON a careful perusal of the mate­rial on record, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court framing charge, under section 308 I.P.C. Whether the offence under section 308 I.P.C. is made out or not, it shall be finally decided by the Court after evidence. The revision lacks merit and is accord­ingly dismissed.;