{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2309 OF 2009 Smt.Kantabai w/o Mahadeo Pavase APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent No.1 State Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 4 th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed below Exhibit-1 in Sessions Case No.72/2008 and prayed to quash and set aside the order by which the committal order passed by the learned JMFC, Ashti is quashed and set aside and remitted the case to the JMFC, Ashti for disposing of the same in accordance with law. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present application can {2} be summarized thus - a) On the complaint of one Kantabai, an offence was registered at CR No.69/2007 in respect of an incident dated 24.05.2007. It was alleged that in the night between 23rd and 24th May 2007, when the complainant was sleeping in the courtyard along with her family members, somebody had thrown some liquid substance on her person and on the person of her son and due to the burning sensation, they woke up and saw some persons running away from the spot. Thereafter, respondents No.2 to 5 were arrested in connection with the said offence. b) On 24 th May 2007, the complainant and her son were referred to the Rural Hospital, Ashti. The injuries found on their person indicate that unable to open eyes, superficial acid burn on face, right side neck, upper lips and on the chest. c) After completion of the investigation, it appears, charge sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Ashti and case was numbered as RCC No.32/2008. It further appears that after passing the necessary committal order, on 05.07.2008, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions Beed and numbered as Sessions Case No.72/2008. d) It appears that when the Sessions Case No.72/2008 {3} came up on board for framing charge on 29.01.2009, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the papers of investigation, particularly the medical papers, was of the view that the alleged offence against respondents No.2 to 5 would not attract section 307 of the IPC and hence he remitted the matter back to the learned JMFC, for decision in accordance with law. 4. During the course of submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as the committal order was passed u/s 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have set aside the same and should not have remitted the matter back for trial in accordance with law, by altering the alleged charges. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the ruling reported in AIR 1996 SC 1931 in the matter of “Raj Kishor Prasad V/s State of Bihar”. At this juncture, it has to bear in mind that the issue referred in the said judgment was whether at the time of passing of the committal order can the committal court take recourse of section 319 to add a person as an accused, who was not arrayed as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. This is not the issue before this Court and hence the ratio laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. 5. Scheme about framing of charge is prescribed in the {4} Criminal Procedure Code under Chapter XVIII. In the said Chapter, 3 sections play vital role. They are, section 226, 227 and 228. Section 226 speaks for opening of the case for prosecution, section 227 speaks for discharge whereas section 228 speaks for framing of charge. While framing the charge, as per section 226, the duty is casted on the Sessions Judge to hear the prosecution on the point of material collected to frame the charge and at the same time to give equal opportunity to the defence to point out from the evidence on record, whether the same is sufficient to frame charge, as alleged or not. The very basic principle behind enacting these sections is that while framing charge, learned Sessions Judge has to assess the evidence on record to correctly frame the charge and the defence must know the charge which they have to face and the prosecution also must know the charge, which they have to prove. 6. It appears from the paragraph No.2 and 3 of the order impugned that the learned Sessions Judge has discussed the medical evidence and then arrived at the conclusion that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant and her son and the allegation in respect of pouring of acid, whether amounts to an offence u/s 307 or not and in unambiguous terms, it is discussed that considering the medical evidence as well as the statements of the witnesses, this is not a case where charge to be framed u/s 307, however to be framed u/s 326 of the IPC. Therefore, in the light of these observations, learned Sessions Judge has set aside the committal order and sent {5} the matter back to decide the same in accordance with law by the JMFC. Perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any perversity. 7. During the course of submissions, the medical certificates issued on 24.05.2007 are shown to me. On bare perusal of the same it appears that so far as injuries sustained by the complainant and her son are concerned, though the same are grievous, yet would amount to disfigure of face, neck and chest, however, certainly would not have caused death of the complainant or her son, had not been treated instantly. In other words, the injuries sustained by the injured are not of the nature which might have caused death and with that knowledge they were assaulted by the respondents. If it is so and considering the medical opinion, section 307 would not be attracted, however at the most section 326 would come into picture. In the given set of facts, I do not find that any interference is required by this Court in the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by Sessions Court, Beed below Exhibit-1 in Sessions Case No.72/2008. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln2309-09