M.B.SHARMA,J. - (1.) IN Sessions Case No. 6/1987 the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, under the impugned order dated April 1, 1987, so far as the accused non -petitioners are concerned came to the conclusion that only a charge Under Sections 304A, IPC and Section 342, IPC is made get against them. This revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge and according to the Public Prosecutor it is a clear case where the charge Under Section 302 IPC should have been framed.
(2.) A look at the impugned order will show that the learned Sessions Judge while framing the charges Under Sections 304A and 342, IPC has observed that a look at the Post Mortem report will show that there was no injuries on the vital part of the body of the deceased and the deceased died as a result of shock. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge opined that instead of a charge Under Section 302, IPC, a charge Under Sections 304 and 342, IPC should be framed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused -non -petitioners and have gone through the record. A look at the post -mortem report will show that all the injuries are contusion and abraisons and the deceased died as a result of shock due to multiple injuries. It further appears from the perusal of the statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr. PC that did not appear as to how the occurrence took place. The doctor has not said that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , in my opinion, there is no force in this revision inflection. It is here by dismissed.;