JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. 1. This criminal revision is filed by II persons who are accused in Sessions Trial No. 13 off 1986 pending before 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad. Grievance of the revisionists is that the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC framed against all of them is unwarranted and groundless, hence this should be quashed. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. First Information Report was lodged by the Head Constable Bhullan Dubey on 21-8-88 against all the revisionists as accused. According to the FIR informant Head Constable Bhullan along with other constables was on duty in connection with procession of Moharram on that date. When the procession reached near the Chhappar of Ram Dularey by passing through its route, all the accused-revisionists collectively threw bricks and stoness at the house of Ram Dularey as well as on Police personnel who were on duty. One of the contable, namely, Parusu Ram Dubey was asked to go and give information to the Police Station but the accused-revisionists caught hold of his cycle and started up-rotting the Chhapper of Ram Dularey. As a result of the throwing of bricks and stones one of the constables got injuries on his head and injury was also caused to Ram Dularey, some of his family members and a few others. At the warning by the police constables the assailants ran away but on being chased one of the accused- assailants, namely Shah Alam who was one of the members of the assembly took out a hand-grenade from his LUNGI and threw it which fell down and exploded at a distance, but, on again being chased another hand-granade was thrown near the house of Raja Ram Verma which did not explode. That hand grehade was taken to the police station. Some of the accused-revisionists were caught on the spot as a result of the chase and they were taken to the police station. 3. Six persons which included constable Faya Lal and a few members of the family of Ram Dularey and other were medically examined in the night of the same day of occurrence i. e. 21-8-88 and the six injury reports have been filed. 4. 3. Six persons which included constable Faya Lal and a few members of the family of Ram Dularey and other were medically examined in the night of the same day of occurrence i. e. 21-8-88 and the six injury reports have been filed. 4. On the basis of the FIR case was registered against all the accused- revisionists, investigated and chargesheet submitted against all of them to the court of Magistrate for different offences including the offence under Section 307 IPC which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Under Section 209 CrPC against all the accused-revisionists who do not seems to have moved against the commitment order and against their appearance which was ensured by the Sessions Court before it. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 148 IPC and Section 332 read with Section 149 IPC against Shah Alam accused and under Section 147 and 332 read with Section 149 IPC against the remaining 10 accused- revisionists. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 148 IPC and Section 332 read with Section 149 IPC against Shah Alam accused and under Section 147 and 332 read with Section 149 IPC against the remaining 10 accused- revisionists. Additionally the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was framed by the court of Sessions against :- (i) Shah Alam in the following terms :- "that you along with ten others being a member of unlawful assembly on aforesaid date, time and place all of you or some of your co-accused did an act, namely, brick batting and you blastured Hand Bomb with such intention or knowledge under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of Ram Dularey, or any one of his family member, or police party, you would have been guilty of murder and you caused hurt to Ram Murat, Ram Subhag, Smt. Ram Milan, Ram Dularey and Constable Phaya Lal by your said act and has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within the cognizance of this court of Sessions ;" (ii) and against the remaining accused-revisionists in the following terms :- "That you along with the aforesaid Saleh Alam on the afoiesaid date, time and place and being members of unlawful assembly, all of you and some of you did an act namely by throwing brick battings on aforesaid person and also your co-accused namely Saleh Alam Washed hand bomb, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that by that act you had caused the death of any one, Police Party or Ram Dularey or others, would have been guilty of murder and you caused hurt to Ram Murat, Ram Subhag, Smt. Aamin, Ram Milan, Ram Dularey and Phaya Lal your said act and you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within the cognizance of this court of Sessions" 5. As already mentioned he only framed charge challenged by the revisionists in this revision petition is that of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC on the ground that the same is groundless and unwarranted. 6. As already mentioned he only framed charge challenged by the revisionists in this revision petition is that of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC on the ground that the same is groundless and unwarranted. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that neither the FIR nor the injury reports nor the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the course of investigation justified framing of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. No doubt, injury reports are to the effect that the injuries were found to be no non-vital parts and were of simple nature, but the injury reports are not all in all for the purposes of framing the charges. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed before this Court. Copies of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the course of investigation with a view to substantiate his contention that the material collected during investigation did not make out nor provided basis for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were perused and the assertion/contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is found to be not correct. There was undoubtedly available before the Session Judge the material that all the accused forming an unlawful assembly indulged in rioting and violence by using brick-bats and stones against the members of the public and Police party and throwing of hand-grenade by one of the members of the accused party. Section 228 CrPC provides for framing of charge by a court of Sessions. It reads as under :- "228. Framing of charge (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report ; (b) is exclusively, triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 7. In the instant case there was available before the court of Sessions such material (referred to above) on the basis of which the Sessions Judge could form opinion that three existed ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. This is all that what required for framing of the charge under Section 307 read with Sec. 149 IPC by the Sessions Judge. Whether charges framed will borne out or fall on the ground on adducing the evidence in the trial before the Sessions case is altogether a different question and is to be considered at the stage subsequent to the framing of the charges. 8. The alternative contention of the learned counsed for the revisionists that the charge under Section 307 IPC could at the most be framed against Shah Alam only and against no other accused-revisionist, is also not correct. The charge under Section 307 read with Sec. 149 IPC is neither groundless nor unwarranted. 9. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.