Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 20 January, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the offences under Sections 147/148, 307, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code were prima -facie made out and ordered to frame charge against the accused revisionists No. 1 to 9 accordingly.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned PP appearing for the State as also the learned Counsel for the complainant and carefully scanned the relevant material on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionists canvassed that none of the injured persons namely Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Farooq sustained any grievous injury on the vital part of their body. The injuries on right side of parietal region of Mohd. Yusuf and an injury on left temporo parietal region of Mohd. Farooq have been found to be simple in nature. None of the injuries has been described to be dangerous to life and thus, no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was made out as none of the injuries was sufficient to cause their death. The nature of injuries sustained by both the injured persons are simple in nature, hence the offence does not travel beyond 325 of Indian Penal Code.
(3.) E Converso, the learned Counsel for the complainant as also the learned PP appearing for the state contended that the size of the lacerated wound caused on the right side of parietal region of injured Mohd. Yusuf was 11 Cm. x 2 Cm x bone deep and this injury was actively bleeding at the time of examination. Similarly, the lacerated wound on left temporo parietal region of Mohd. Farooq was 'V shaped and of the size of 15Cm.* 7Cm.* bone deep. This injury was also flap roted and profusely bleeding. Mohd. Farooq is also found to have sustained one incised wound on above right eye transversely. These injuries evince that the accused had used sharp edged weapon also. They assaulted upon the skull of both the injured persons resulting into large size of injuries. Albeit, the same were not found to be grievous in nature, but the intention to cause injuries on the vital part of the body cannot be ignored at the stage of framing of charge. Thus, impugned order warrants no interference.;