ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated May 7, 1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance against the petitioners Sagar Das, Parmeshwari, Prahlad, Krishna and Bhagwanti for the offences under Sections 148,302,325 and 302/149 I. P. C. and directed to issue Warrants of Arrest against the accused-petitioners for securing their presence.
(2.) HEMA Ram Rebari, resident of Begarla, on April 30, 1988, lodged an F. I. R. at Police Station, Rani. It was alleged in the report that an year before, he, his father, his maternal-uncle Moola Ram and Moda Ram purchased land from one Khinv Singh. Since the day of purchase of this land, Devi Singh and his family members are inimical to them and the litigation is going-on between them. They were facing the trial and were in the judicial lock-up for the last eight-nine months and after being released on bail, went to Sadri on April 29,. 1988. On April 30, 1988, at about 12. 00 noon, they came to village Vingerlao. Moda Ram's wife came running and informed him that Bhopal Singh, Karan Singh, Ram Singh, Devi Singh Madha Ram, Roop Singh, Laxman Singh and Bhanwar Singh are sitting in the Jogmaya's temple and are conspiring together. According to her, Ram Singh asked them to finish the Rebari and he would take care of all of them. She, therefore, informed Moda Ram and HEMA Ram to run away. When Moda Ram and HEMA Ram tried to run away, all these accused persons followed them on a tractor and near Vingerla hillock, Bhopal Singh, Karan Singh and Madho Singh encircled them. Thereafter Madho Singh. inflicted injury with Lathi on the head of HEMA Ram and Roop Singh and Laxman Singh inflicted injury by Lathi. Laxman Singh and Karan Singh inflicted * injuries to Moda Ram by Dhariya and Madho Singh, Roop Singh and Laxman Singh, also, inflicted injuries to Moda Ram by Lathis. When Moda Ram and HEMA Ram cried, Bhaga Ram, their brother, who was grazing his she-goats, and his sister Morki came there and cried. They all ran away after cutting the leg of Moda Ram. Moda Ram died on the spot. On the basis of this information, an F. I. R. was registered at Police Station, Rani. The investigation changed various hands and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Ram Singh, Bhopal Singh, Karan Singh, Madho Singh, Laxman Singh and Bhanwar Singh in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, and submitted Final Report so far as accused Devi Singh and Roop Singh are concerned. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, committed the accused to stand trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after giving an opportunity of hearing, by his order dated May 7,1992, framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148,302/149,307/149,326/149, 302, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 120-B I. P. C. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence against the petitioners, on the basis of which the charges could have been framed against the petitioners. No witness has involved the petitioners. Ram Singh was not present at the time of the incident and the participation of petitioner Bhanwar Singh and keeping any weapon by him have not been disclosed by any witness and, therefore, no charge could have been framed against them. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against the petitioners. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. There is sufficient evidence on record implicating the petitioners. Witnesses Hema Ram and Smt. Matudi have given the statements specifically implicating these petitioners. It cannot be said that there was no evidence against the petitioners to frame the charges against them. At the time of framing the charges, the Court is only required to see the broad aspects of the case and evaluate the material and documents on record to find-out that if the facts emerging from the evidence, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the offences. The evidence on record has to be evaluated simply to satisfy whether prima facie there is some material existing on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioners. After perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that prima facie the material for framing the charges against the accused exists in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected from this Court while* exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to discuss all such evidence available on record to see whether the evidence constitutes the offences because if that will be done then that may prejudice the case of the petitioners themselves and it will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. In my opinion, there is sufficient material on record, on the basis of which the charges under Sections 148,302/149, 307/149, 326/149, 302, 307 read with 114 and Section 120-B I. P. C. can be framed against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioners.
(3.) IN the result, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;