IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Geeta Ram & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1627/2009) S. B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 4-9- 2009 passed by Sessions Judge Dholpur whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against petitioners. Date of Judgment: November 27, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Anil Jain, for the petitioners. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: The petitioners have challenged the order dated 4-9-2009 passed by Sessions Judge Dholpur whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC against the petitioner Geeta Ram, for the offences under sections 341, 323 and 307/34 IPC against the petitioner No.2, Rambabu, and petitioner No.3, Mahendra Singh. 2. Mr. Anil Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that according to injury report of Ram Niwas, he had suffered a single injury on his head. According to the X-ray report, there was “hairline fracture on his skull”. According to opinion of the doctor “although on the basis of external and clinical basis this injury may not look like dangerous to life, but normally fracture of the skull bone is dangerous to life”. According to learned counsel, thus the doctor had clearly pointed out that “the injury is not dangerous to life”. Still, the learned Judge has framed the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner Geeta Ram, and under Section 307/34 IPC against the petitioner No.2, Rambabu, and petitioner No.3, Mahendra Singh. He has further argued that since the occurrence had taken place suddenly, since there are cross cases between the parties, since the injury was caused merely by “a lathi”, the intention to cause death is absent. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in framing the charge under section 307 IPC. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of framing the charge. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the material available on record, and examined the impugned order. 5. Although, it is true that at the time of framing of charge, the learned Judge is not expected to meticulously examine the evidence, but, nonetheless, the Court should see whether there is “reasonable prospectus of conviction” before framing the charge. The Medical Jurist had clearly opined that the injury is not dangerous to life. Although in the cases of such injury, it could be dangerous to life. While expressing its opinion, the Medical Jurist merely states that in cases of such an injury, it could be dangerous to life. But he emphatically stated that in the present case the injury was not injurious to life. 6. Considering the fact that the injury is not dangerous to life, the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out. Moreover, considering the fact that the occurrence took place suddenly, considering the fact that the injury was caused by a lathi, which is not a lethal weapon, considering the fact that a single injury was inflicted, the intention to commit murder is absent. 7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4-9- 2009 is quashed and set aside. The charge under section 307 IPC against the petitioner Geeta Ram, and under section 307/34 IPC against the petitioners Ram Babu and Mahendra Singh are quashed and set aside. However, the learned trial court is directed to re-frame the charges against the petitioners. 9. The revision petition stands allowed, as indicated above. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn/