Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioners accused have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 4.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali whereby, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused petitioners for the offences under Ss. 148, 341, 323, 325 and 307, IPC. The accused -petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant revision being aggrieved to the extent of charge framed against them for the offence under Sec. 307, IPC.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that from the material available on record, there is no such evidence on the strength whereof the trial court could infer that the accused intended to make an attempt on the life of the injured. He submits that neither the location nor the nature of the injuries caused to the injured is such that charge under Sec. 307, IPC could be applied against the accused. The accused are not alleged to have used any dangerous weapon in the incident. Therefore, the trial Court was unjustified in framing charge against the accused for the offence under Sec. 307, IPC. He thus prays that the revision petition deserves to be accepted.
(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They contend that the accused party, indiscriminately assaulted the injured and caused them several grievous and simple injuries by blunt weapons. They contend that lathi if used on the head can very well turn out to be a dangerous weapon and blow caused on the head can result into a fatality. He drew the attention of this Court to the injury report of Suresh Kumar wherein it is clearly mentioned that he was caused a lacerated wound measuring .5 x 1 x 1 cms. on his right occipital region. Blood was oozing from the wound. The injured Dala Ram also suffered a head injury. They thus contend that as the accused inflicted head injuries to two injured, it can be clearly inferred that their intention was to make an attempt on their life. They urged that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is only required to form an opinion that there are grounds to presume that the accused have committed the offence. The trial Court after a detailed examination of the material available on record, formed such opinion in the case at hand and, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to be persuaded to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for interfering in the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court.;