KAPUR, J. - (1.) AN incident occurred on 21.8.1989, cross complaints were lodged. In the complaint of the present petitioner challan was filed and the learned Magistrate after considering the matter found that offence under section 307 IPC was also made out. As it was triable by the court of Sessions it was committed to Sessions.
(2.) THE learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur (Sessions Judge) heard the parties on the question of charge and held that no offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was made out therefore the case was sent to the CJM with the direction to frame charges for offences under sections 147,323, 325, 149 read with section 323 and 325 IPC. Against this order dated 9.7.1990 the complainant has preferred this revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is fracture in the left frontal temporal region due to the head injury of Shriram and the doctor has given opinion that the injury is grievous and likely to cause death. On the basis of this report and also on the basis of the circumstances in which the incident took place it has been contended that charge under section 307 IPC ought to have been framed. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case reported in Akbar vs. Stale (1), in order to contend that at the time of framing of charge, the court should not consider whether it would result in conviction or acquittal and at this stage the evidence should not be weighed in sensitive balance. He has further placed reliance on the case reported in Radhey Shyam vs. Kunj Behari (2) in which quashing of the charge by the trial court on the ground of inadequacy of the evidence was set aside on the ground that at the stage of framing of the charge meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the court was not required.;