SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this revision preferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek to assail the order dated 22.8.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325/34, 308, 308/34 I.P.C.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Jakhaniya restricted his arguments to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C. He urges that the sole injured Sohan Ram suffered 7 superficial and trivial injuries on his person in the incident at hour. Of the 7 injuries, one on the right leg was opined to be grievous as there was a fracture of right lower ? .. " part of fibula bone. Out of the 7 injuries, there was abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on occipital region of the injured. He thus, urges that the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. because neither knowledge nor intention to cause such injury which could prove fatal can be attributed to the petitioners in view of the nature and location of the injuries inflicted to the injured. He thus craves for acceptance of the revision and urges that the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel Shri Solanki representing the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that as the petitioners inflicted numerous injuries including a head injury to the injured, the trial court rightly framed charge under Section 308 I.P.C. against them.;