Amar Saran - (1.) -I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the O.P. and learned A.G.A.
(2.) AN order dated 1.12.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Fourth, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 275 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to refuse the prayer for discharge of the revisionists under Sections 308, 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C., P. S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur, has been challenged by means of this application. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists that initially the case was registered as an N.C.R. case under Sections 323 and 504, I.P.C. on 27.2.2008 as the injuries sustained by the injured, Shadab, were not considered to be dangerous to life. Even after investigation the charge-sheet was prepared only under Sections 323, 325 and 504, I.P.C. and was forwarded to the Circle Officer concerned on 4.4.2006. The Circle Officer, however, returned back the charge-sheet with the observation that as there were grievous injuries on the head and fracture was revealed in the X-ray report, hence the charge-sheet ought to be filed also under Section 308 I.P.C., in addition to Section 325 I.P.C. It was mentioned by the applicant in his application for discharge dated 22.11.2006, that the doctor had not stated that any injury was dangerous to life and this opinion was given after X-ray examination. However, the learned trial Judge has found that as there were 17 injuries out of which 5 were kept under observation and after X-ray examinations a fracture of the parietal bone of the head was found. Therefore, it could not be concluded at this stage that the injuries were not dangerous to life. Furthermore in the initial application under Section 155 (2), Cr. P.C., the allegation was that the accused persons had cried out that the informant be murdered and that first he was fired upon with a country-made pistol and after the fire missed him the others assaulted him with the butt of a country-made pistol. A lot of blood had also flowed from the head of the injured, and the charge-sheet had even been submitted under Section 308, I.P.C. In this view of the matter the trial Judge concluded that a prima facie case for framing a charge under Section 308, I.P.C. was made out and he passed the order rejecting the revisionists prayer for discharge under the said provision. I find no illegality in the said order. At the stage of framing of charges, it has only to be seen whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused or whether there is prima facie material for framing charges under particular sections. There is no need for a meticulous examination of the material, and even reasonable suspicion for framing a charge would suffice. There is no requirement to consider whether the material was sufficient for ensuring the eventual conviction of the accused. That matter will be considered after the evidence is led.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, I find no illegality in the order impugned. This revision is rejected.;