1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3323 OF 2007 Sahebrao Biru Mogre and Ors. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for the petitioners Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for State CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. The Criminal Application has been filed to challenge the issuance of process under section 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of these offences against the applicants besides other offences. An application has been filed by the applicants for discharge under section 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This discharge application has been dismissed by the 2 Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Niphad on 21.07.07. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Sessions Judge has relied on the medical certificate issued by private hospital indicating that the victim had suffered injuries on the head which can be termed as grievous injuries. The learned Advocate submits that the Sessions Court was incorrect in dismissing the discharge application since there was no material on record for it to arrive at the conclusion that the charges framed under sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. would be proved against the applicants. The learned Advocate has drawn my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1570 Soni reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1570 Soni reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1570 and the learned single Judge of this court in the case of Manohar s/o Narayanrao Pranjale v. State of Manohar s/o Narayanrao Pranjale v. State of Manohar s/o Narayanrao Pranjale v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2097. Maharashtra reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2097. Maharashtra reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2097. 3. In my opinion, there is no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding to 3 frame charges under section 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni (Supra), the court while framing the charge must prima facie consider whether sufficient grounds are available for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required at that stage to conclude whether the material produced is sufficient for convicting the accused. 4. In the present case, there is material on record which indicates that the victim has suffered head injuries. Both the certificates issued by the Nasik Civil Hospital as well as the Private Hospital indicate that there was extradural Haematoma at left fronto parital region. It is for this reason that the Sessions Court has framed charges, both under sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. Whether these charges will be proved or not is a question which can be decided after the evidence is led at the trial court. There is, therefore, no need to interfere with the decision of the Sessions Court. Petition is therefore, rejected. 4 5. Any observations in this order or of the order of the Sessions Court while rejecting the application for discharge are prima facie and should not influence the court while the trial is being conducted. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.)