- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated January 10, 1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur (Camp Salumber), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to frame the charges against the accused under Section 307 I. P. C.
(2.) ON May 7, 1991, Abdul Beg Mirza lodged an F. I. R. at Police Station, Sarda, against one Abdul Rashid. It was stated in the report that in the morning, at about 8. 30 a. m. , Abdul Rashid and Abdul Rajak threatened him that he will be killed. When after lodging the report at the Police Station he was going to give evidence, Abdul Rashid came armed with a sword and in order to kill him, he inflicted three injuries on him by the sword. Abdul Rashid, also, inflicted injury to Bashir Mohammed- ON the basis of this report, a case under Section 307 I. P. C. was registered and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Abdul Rashid for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 323 I. P. C. and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur (Camp Salumber ). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, refused to frame the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. but framed the charges only under Sections 324 and 326 I. P. C. and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act and sent the case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, for trial. It is against this order that the petitioner-complainant has preferred this revision petition. The injured received only simple injuries by the sword. None of the injuries, inflicted by the accused was found to be grevious or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The part of the body selected by the accused and the nature of the injuries received by the complainant-injured, show the intention of the accused and the learned lower Court has rightly considered all the aspects of the case properly. The ingredients of the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. are not available in the present case and the learned lower Court rightly refused to frame charge under Section 307 I. P. C. against the accused-respondent. The learned lower Court has properly considered the relevant materials on record and the order, passed by the learned lower Court, cannot be said to be, in any way, unjust, improper or illegal. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;