PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. - (1.) Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaur vide which the petitioners have been charged under section 341, 323, 324, 325 336 and 308 I.P.C.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. It is also contended that the weapons are shown to have been recovered after three months of the incident from the incident site. Whereas, as per the site plan, no incriminating material or object was available when the site plan was prepared. It is also contended that the injuries are all simple in nature and Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. Other limb of argument is that the charges under Section 120-B have not been framed and the common intention is missing.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on "Ram Kesh Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant Prajapati, 2007 (4) ADJ 418", "Mahesh and Ors v. State of M.P., 1988 CrLJ 1565" , "Mannoo Lal Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P., 1994 AWC 629" and "Virendra Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2008 CrLR 1249".;