Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This revision petition under sec.397/401 CrPC has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 25th January 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.178/2011 whereby learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the respondents No.2 to 5 for offences punishable under sec.323, 324, 326, 341 read with 34 IPC and against respondent No.4- Vinay, in addition for offence punishable under sec.4/25 of the Arms Act also but held that no prima facie case is made out for framing charge of offence punishable under sec.307/34 IPC. Aggrieved by not framing charge under sec.307/34 IPC against the accused - respondents, the complainant has preferred present Revision Petition before this Court.

3. Briefly stating the background facts are that on the complainant lodged a report on 17.4.2011 against accused respondents, inter alia, alleging that accused-respondents made fatal assault on him, accused-respondent Vinay inflicted sword blow upon him and which cut fingers on his left hand while defending the blow; Tulsi Ram hit him from behind with iron-pipe, causing him bleeding in the head. All accused persons assaulted him with common intention to kill. Upon this report, FIR No.182/2011 was registered at Police Station, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur.

4. In the matter, cross-FIR No.183/2011 was also registered. As per cross-FIR, accused persons Tulsi Ram and Prem Prakash also suffered injuries.

5. After due investigation, challan was filed against accused persons for offence under secs.341, 323, 324, 326, 307 IPC and under sec.4/25 of the Arms Act.

6. Learned Additional Judge observed that from the x-ray report, it reveals that injury on head of petitioner complainant was caused by blunt weapon and there was no grievous injury on vital part of the body. Therefore, learned court below held that charge for offence under sec.307/34 IPC is not made out against accused-persons. Charge for other offences was framed against the accused petitioner. Aggrieved of not framing charge under sec.307 IPC against the accused persons, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated submissions made before the court below and prayed for framing of charge against accused-respondents under sec.307 IPC also.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that learned court below rightly held that no case is made out against accused-persons for framing charge of offence punishable under sec.307 IPC.

9. Having heard both the parties and gone through the order impugned passed by the trial court as also documents produced before this Court, looking to the fact that there is also cross-case out of this incident by the opposite party; I find that the learned trial court committed no error in framing the aforesaid charges against the accused respondents on the basis of material available before it.

10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge may be framed. The court is to see if there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused has committed offence, if it finds so, the court shall frame charge against the accused person.

11. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as reasons given by learned court below in the order impugned, the order passed by the trial court, seems to be just and proper and this Court finds no illegality, which may call for any interference in the present Revision Petition.

12. With aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also accordingly stands dismissed.

Revision dismissed.