S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) THE State has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated August 14, 1980 in Session Case No. 44 of 1980. By this order, the learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused-respondents from an offence under s. 307, IPC and sent the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore for trial under Section 228 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 326, 427 and 447, IPC.
(2.) THE police submitted a challan in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal against the accused-respondents for offences under section 307, I. P. C. etc. THE learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jalore. THE learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, was of the opinion that no case under section 307, IPC was prima facie made out. He, therefore, passed the impugned order referred to above. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents. The injured victim in the case is Uttamdass. His injury report shows that he received as many as eight injuries. His x-ray examination reveals that out of them four were fractures. The fracture of parieto-occipital region of skull bones of the victim was found. It was argued that looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, a prima facie case under s. 307, I. P. C. was made out. It was further argued that the miscreants intended to inflict injuries on the head of the victim. When the victim raised his right hand to protect his head, the blows fell on his fingers and resulted in three fractures. It was contended that in these circumstances, it should be inferred that the accused had evil intention or atleast the knowledge required to make out an offence under section 307, IPC. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the accused-persons that had they intended to cause the death of the victim, they would have inflicted more blows and would not have spared him. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. As pointed out earlier, the victim received eight injuries. His parieto-occipital region of skull bones got fractured due to infliction of the blows. The skull is a vital part of the human body. The weapon used was 'dhariya', which is a formidable weapon. The nature of injuries the part of the body where the injuries were inflicted and the weapon used prima facie make out an offence under section 307, IPC. It is altogether another matter whether ultimately a conviction under section 307, IPC will follow or not for framing the charges, the ultimate result is not to be taken into consideration. What is required to be seen at the stage of framing the charge is whether a prima facie case is or is not made out to frame the charge under sec. 307, IPC. As discussed above, there is sufficient material to disclosed a prima facie case for framing the charge under section 307, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge was in error in discharging the accused for the offence under sections 307, IPC. In the result, the revision petition succeeds and the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated August 14, 1980 is set aside. The case is sent back to him for trial with directions to frame a charge under section 307, IPC along with the other offences. . ;