- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/9/2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar whereby he has framed charges for the offence under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 365, 342, 307 and 325/149, IPC.
(2.) Shri Badhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the injuries on Prashant Yadav, the injured, are on non-vital parts and out of five injuries, two are lacerated wounds. Both the lacerted wounds are on the left leg and there are three abrassions on the left leg. According to the x-ray report of Prashant Yadav there is fracture of a finger and the fractures on left forearm and fracture on the left leg and right leg. Thus, according to him, these injuries are not "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the person." Hence, offence under S. 307, IPC is not made out against the petitioner.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned P.P. has relied on the case of Khajan Singh v. State of M.P, 1996 Cri LJ 3774 (MP) where M.P. High Court has held that within the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot decide whether a charge under S. 307, I.P.C. is made out or not. He has further submitted that over all circumstances of the case do indicate that the petitioner along with other co-accused intended to cause death of the injured Prashant Yadav.;