Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Instant revision impugns the order dated 23rd Sept. 1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby charge under section 147, 307, 325, 324/34 and 323 IPC was framed against the accused petitioners.
(2.) Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appealing for the petitioners canvassed that the impugned order is perverse and against the material on record. The allegations against the accused persons in the FIR are that they inflicted injuries on the person of injured by farsi, which is a sharp edged weapon but in the medical examination of the injured no fatal injury from the sharp edged weapon was found. The prosecution witnesses developed a new case that the accused persons inflicted spade blow by reverse side. This improved version should not be accepted and even otherwise from the statements of the witnesses it can be easily inferred that the accused petitioners have no intention to cause death of the injured person and no offence even exfacie under section 307 IPC is made cut. Investigating officer made a query in respect of injury to which medical officer replied that the injury sustained by the injured could not result in death of injured person.
(3.) I have been taken through the injury report and the statements of the witnesses. Reliance was placed on Nanchhu Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1990 RCC 87) , Khom Chand v. State of Raj., (1990 RCC 333) .;