Pankaj Bhandari, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2016, whereby the learned court below has framed charges under Section 307 IPC against all the petitioners.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that two injuries have been caused to injured Trilok Ram and both the injuries are simple in nature. As per the x-ray report, no bony injury was seen on the skull. The weapon used in the offence was blunt and the injuries were found to be simple in nature after x-ray. It is also contended that the court below has seriously erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC against each of the petitioner individually. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramlal & Ors. v. State of Raj., 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 355 , wherein the High Court has held that the intention to cause death being not established, charge under Section 307 deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the injury has been caused on the head. Petitioner No. 2 was carrying a gun, which was recovered from the spot, therefore, the intention to cause death is established and the court below has not erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC. However, it is conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that the framing of charge under Section 307 IPC individually against each of the petitioner was erroneous.;