- (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated January 6, 1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 325 and 323 I. P. C.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court has committed an illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner, atleast for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C, particularly when the doctor has opined that none of the injuries, found on the body of the complainant in the present case, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and as such no charge under Section 307 I. P. C. should have been framed. He has, also, submitted that from the evidence collected by the investigating agency, no case for framing the charge is made-out. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the time of framing the charges, the Court has only to see the broad aspect of the case and a close and critical scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. The Court is required only 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 existence of the ingredients of the offences. At this stage, by evaluating the evidence on record I have merely to satisfy myself whether prima facie some material exist on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioner. From the materials available on recoid, Iam of the opinion that prima facie the materials for framing the charges against the petitioner exist in the present case and rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected from this Court, exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to discuss all the evidence on record to see; whether the evidence on record constitute the offence because if that will be done then it will prejudice the case of the petitioner himself and will, also, amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. In the present case, the injured has received as many as fourteen injuries through the doctor has opined that the injuries were simple in nature and the same were caused by blunt weapon except injury No. 12, which is caused by sharp weapon. Injury No. 12, which is an incised wound situated oblique on the front side of head hand front outer end. Though this injury has been stated as simple injury but the doctor advised for the X-ray of the skull and on X-ray, a fracture was found. This injury was caused by a heavy cutting weapon. At the time of framing the charge, the intention of the person inflicting the injury has to be gathered from the part of the body selected by the accused and the kind of the weapon used by him. I have perused the order, passed by the Court below and the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for framing the charges, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has properly considered the case on all the aspects and rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. There is no abuse of the process of the Court. There is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order passed by the Court below.
(3.) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;