JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated January 7, 1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur framing charge against the accused Dilsukh and Kedar for offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the charge-sheet is that a report was lodged on December 8, 1984 at 7 P.M. at Chowki Suroth, where the Dy. Superintendent of Police was holding his camp, by one Chiranji, wherein it was alleged by him that at about 9 A.M. in morning when he was sitting in the chowk and his wife was cleaning the utensils at that time, accused Dilsukh and Kedar and one Babulal started removing stone-slabs and started breaking them. On this Sanwali a and his wife objected. Thereafter, it is alleged that Dilsukh and Kedar pushed Sanwalia as a result of which he fell on the Chowka (stone-slab) and when an attempt was made to lift him, he was found unconscious. Some water was sprinkled on him, after some time he expired. It was alleged that the cause of dispute was fixed of the stone-slabs. Chiranji mentioned that he had seen the accused from a distance of about 15 paces. On receipt of this information the case was registered and investigated. The deceased was subjected to autopsy and his post-mortem report shows that internal haemorrhage of heart was caused. The cause of death was shown to be shock because of cardiac haemorrhage resulting in internal bleeding. The police after completing the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against three persons namely, two petitioners and one Babulal. Babulal has been discharged and the two petitioners have been charged as mentioned above. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by no stretch of imagination a charge for the offence under Section 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC can be conceived in the circumstances 1 of the case firstly because even if the entire prosecution story is relied upon there was no motive for the accused to have killed the deceased. Secondly, I there is no circumstance indicating the intention on the part of the accused 1 to kill the deceased and thirdly, no such injury has been caused to deceased I which was likely to cause his death and lastly it was not within the knowledge of the accused that the deceased had a heart disease or that it could I rapture on a fall. At best, it could be a case of causing simple injury. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on 1970 CAR 40 (SC) Jani Gulab Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra , Cr. LR (Raj) 1982-693, Bhanwar Singh v. State and 1956 RLW 6D, Jawaning v. State . 3. The learned counsel for the State had no proper words to sup-port the order of the learned Sessions Judge and in my opinion rightly so. The order is ex facie perverse. Before framing the charge it is essential that the court must bear in mind the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is to be charged. While framing the charge under section 302 or section 302 read with section 34 IPC it was essential for the learned Sessions Judge to have gone through the provisions of section 300 IPC and also the authorities cited by the caused for the accused before him very carefully. If the facts of this case are tested in the light of requirement of section 300 IPC and the authorities referred to above, no doubt is left in my mind that the charge under section 302 or section 302 read with section 34 IPC cannot stand and has to be quashed. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case as it is likely to prejudice the case at the later stage but suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge would apply his mind to the facts of this case and law on the subject before deciding whether he has to retain the case in his own court or else sent it back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated January 7, 1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the charge under section 302, 302 read with section 34 IPC is quashed. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated January 7, 1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the charge under section 302, 302 read with section 34 IPC is quashed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to rehear the arguments and decide the question of charge afresh.Revision allowed. *******