1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Chandra Prakash @ Chintu and others. Vs. The State of Rajasthan. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.151/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 2nd July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. A.K. Gupta for the petitioners. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 24th January, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.114/2007 framing charge against the accused petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section307/149 IPC. It is contended that in view of the medical report, it cannot be said that primafacie there was sufficient material to frame charge under section 307/149 IPC. It is also contended that though one of the injury on the person of the injured-complainant has been described as dangerous to life but it cannot be said that the injury sustained by the injured was sufficient in the ordinary 2 course of nature to cause death and, therefore, no charge could have been framed under section 307/149 IPC. It is further contended that it is the duty of the court to consider each and every material placed on record by the investigating agency and the court commits legal error if the entire material is not considered by the trial court. It is further contended that the main grievance of the petitioner is in relation to framing of charge under section 307/149 IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the case of Munna Vs. State of Rajasthan- 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529 and Jodh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan- 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 730. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that at the time of framing of charge the material placed before the court was required to be considered and that has not been considered. There are as many as nine injuries on the person of the injured, out of which two were grievous in nature. In the incident, the accused came with deadly weapon like sword etc. and gave beatings, therefore, at this stage framing of charge under Section 307/149 IPC on the basis of the material available on record is proper. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and carefully perused the impugned order. In the case of Munna Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), after trial the accused was convicted and when the matter came 3 up before this court, this court while considering the doctor's evidence held that the doctor has not stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant in that case was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC and not under section 307 IPC. In the case of Jodh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), there was only one gun shot injury and the court on the basis of the medical opinion that the injury was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature held the accused guilty under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and the principles laid down in the authorities cited above. The point for consideration before me is as to whether the charge framed against the accused-petitioner is, primafacie, tenable or the order framing charge requires to be set aside. It is not necessary to discuss the matter in detail as the learned trial court has considered the matter in detail and discussed the material collected during the course of investigation. The trial court found that the accused petitioners having deadly weapons with them gave severe beatings to the complainant party and Sudhir sustained as many as nine injuries though there is only one injury on his head, that too, is not of grievous nature. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the injuries as well as the manner in which the incident took place, the learned trial court found that it was a case where at the stage of framing of charge there was 4 sufficient material to frame charge under section 307/149 IPC. I do not find any illegality in the order of framing charge against the accused-petitioners for the simple reason that in the instant case, the opinion of the doctor is available to the effect that there was injury on the person of injured Sudhir which was dangerous to life. The things can be clarified when the doctor is examined during the course of trial. It is too early to make any observations in the matter because that may affect either side at the trial of the case. The law is also settled on the point that the courts are to be satisfied by framing of charge when, primafacie, there appears sufficient material in framing of charge. In the instant case, there appears, primafacie, material to frame charge under section 307/149 IPC also. Thus, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM