B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 3, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 307 and 458, I. P. C. against the petitioner
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Shambhu Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Mandore (district Bhilwara) on September 25, 1989, to the effect that in the morning of September 25, 1989, when he, along with his family members, was sleeping in his house, the accused came armed with a Lathi and knocked at the doors and after opening the door, inflicted injuries with Lathi and this Lathi was snatched by the son of the complainant. As the Lathi of the accused was snatched by the son of the complainant, he, therefore, went running to his house and came back with a gun. He tried to make fire but that gun was, also, snatched by the other persons who had collected there. Thereafter, again, the accused went to his house and brought a sword. When he came back to the house of the complainant with a sword, the complainant closed the doors of his house, The accused thereafter scaled the wall, came into the house and with an intention to kill the complainant, tried to inflict injuries by the sword on his head but as the complainant raised his hand, the four fingers were cut. The villagers surrounded the accused and snatched the sword from him. On the basis of this of this report, a case under Sections 457 and 32, I. P. C. was registered and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused under Sections 307,458 and 324, I. P. C. the learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated March 3,1990, framed the charges under Sections 307, 324 and 458, I. P. C. against the accused-petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged so far as the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 458 and 324, I. P. C. are concerned, but has challenged only the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 307, I. P. C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the statements recorded and the documents collected during the investigation, no case under Section 307,i. P. C. is made out and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Court below was not justified in framing the charge under Section 307, I. P. C. against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the framing of the charges on all the counts against the accused-petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions. At the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously looked into. At that stage, it is to be seen whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes-out a Case for conviction. If it is so, then the charges can be framed. But if the unrebutted evidence itself does not make-out a case that the accused has committed the offence, then the charges should not be framed, The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the Court has evaluate the evidence at that initial stage.
(3.) I have looked into the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the complete challan papers this. The complaint in the is case , has received only three simple injuries, which are as under:- (1) Incised wound 2 Cm. x 0. 5 cm. x 0. 3 cm. on palmer aspect of left middle finger. (2) Incised wound 2. cm. x 0. 2 cm. x 0. 1 cm. on palmer aspect of left finger. (3) Incised wound 2 cm. x 0. 3. cm. x 0. 2 cm. on palmer aspect of left index finger. " It is, on doubt, true that the complainant received only three simple injuries and that too on the middle palmer aspect and index fingers of left hand,, but merely because he had received only three simple injuries, on that ground itself, the intention of the accused petitioner cannot be inferred. The accused, in the present case, came armed with Lathi and tried to inflict the injury on the complainant ; when that Lathi was snatched, he again went to his house and brought a gun, which, also was snatched by the villagers and the doors were closed by the complainant. Thereafter the accused again came armed with a sword and seeing the doors closed, he scaled the wall and tried to inflict injuries with the sword on the head of the complainant, which landed on his hand as the complainant had already raised his hand to ward-off his head, It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the injured should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to case death. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with an intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. At this stage, it is sufficient that if strong suspicion is there, with respect to the intention of the accused coupled with some overt-act in execution thereof. The learned Sessions Judge, in this case, after considering the complete record of the case, has framed the charge under Section 307, I. P. C. against the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned lower Court, framing the charges, does not require any interference, the order of framing the charges passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, does not suffer from any serious infirmity. It is eminently just and fair order. In the result, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. . ;