- (1.) List revised. No one is present on behalf of the revisionists even in the revised call whereas Sri Shailesh Pandey and learned A.G.A. are present on behalf of opposite parties. This revision has been filed against the order dated 26.2.2014 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No. 123 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 540 of 2012, under Sections 308, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur, whereby the learned court below after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and finding a prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 308, 325, 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., has fixed a date for framing charges against the revisionists.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges against the revisionists under Sections 308, 325, 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are not made out as there is no material on record for framing charges under aforesaid sections. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that all the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object and in x-ray report issued by District Hospital, Mirzapur, NAD has been shown of the alleged injured. However, Section 308 I.P.C. has been added by learned trial court without considering that there was no fatal injury on the head of any injured person. It has further been argued that the injury report issued by Jai Durga Diagnostic Centre, Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital Campus, Allahabad in which fracture of right temporal, greater wing of sphenold bone and parietal bone seen, has been manufactured from a private nursing home.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists. They have further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion of framing charge under the Sections mentioned above as it found prima facie evidence available for it. Learned A.G.A. has contended that in wake of guidelines of Apex Court, the court below has not committed any illegality by fixing a date for framing charges under the aforesaid sections. The impugned order shows that the court below has found a prima facie case for framing the charges on the basis of the evidence as available on record i.e. fracture on the temporal region, which is a vital part of the body. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned.;