JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 29, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioners Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 324/149 and 325, I.P.C. 2. On December 9, 1987, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur, by Shri Vijay Choudhary that in the evening at about 4.45 p.m. on that day, he was sitting in his shop and at that time accused-petitioners Bhupendra Singh and Deepak alongwith four other persons came to his shop. Bhupendra Singh was armed with an ironpipe, Deepak was armed with a Lathi and the remaining accused were armed with Lathis and swords. After reaching the shop Bhupendra Singh inflicted an injury with the ironpipe at the legs; Deepak tried to inflict injury by Lathi on his head, which landed on the right hand as the complainant raised his right hand; and the remaining accused persons started beating by legs and fists. On the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, I.P.C. was registered against the present petitioners and the four others. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan under these Sections and after the submissions of the challan, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, who, by his order dated November 29, 1989, framed the charges Under Sections 307/149, 147, 325 and 324, I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the accused petitioners. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the framing of the charges against the accused-petitioner except the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. His contention is that no charge Under Section 307, I.P.C, in the present case, is sustainable from the evidence available on record, i.e. the statements of the witnesses recorded and the documents collected by the prosecution. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on: Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan 1987 R.C.C. 142 . He, therefore, prayed that the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C., as it is not sustainable, should be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioners. 5. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on: Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan 1987 R.C.C. 142 . He, therefore, prayed that the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C., as it is not sustainable, should be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioners. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. At the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously looked into. At this stage, the Court is not required to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Even a strong suspicion against the accused, if it leads to the presumption that the accused has committed an offence, if it is there, then the Court can frame the charges against the accused. At that stage, it is to be seen whether adduce, makes out a case for conviction. If it is so then the charges can be framed. But if the unrebutted evidence itself does not make out a case that the accused has committed the offence, then the charges should not be framed. The Court while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the Court has to evaluate the evidence at that initial stage. 7. In the present case, the evidence, which has been produced by the prosecution, only goes to show that six accused persons came to the shop of the complainant and gave him beatings. Though they were armed with deadly weapons like Dhariya and sword, but the complainant received only four injuries and that too on the legs and hands. No injury on the vital part of the body was received by the complainant. The injuries received by the complainant are as under: "1. Incised wound 5.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. skin deep on the right hand palm in the web between right thumb and index finger. Oblique-bleeding 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep upper ⅓ right leg anteriorly with bleeding. 3. The injuries received by the complainant are as under: "1. Incised wound 5.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. skin deep on the right hand palm in the web between right thumb and index finger. Oblique-bleeding 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep upper ⅓ right leg anteriorly with bleeding. 3. Lacerated wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the upper ⅓ right leg. Anteriorly with swelling and bleeding. 4. Illetifine swelling lower ⅓ right forearm and wrist with tendarness. 8. For framing the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. prima facie it has to be made out that the death of human being was attempted and (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused and such act was done with the intention of causing the death, or it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (i) the accused knew to be likely to cause death or (ii) it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Looking to the nature of the injuries inflicted on the person of the complainant, the part of the body selected by the accused for inflicting the injuries, the nature and the size of the injuries and the motive clearly show that the petitioners had no intention or knowledge to cause such injuries which may have resulted in the death of the complainant. The petitioners were armed with deadly weapons like Dhariya and sword and if they had any intention to kill the complainant then they could have inflicted the injuries on the vital part (s) of the body of the complainant. The absence of such injury on any vital part of the body of the complainant shows the intention of the petitioners. In the case of Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan 1987 R.C.C. 142 , the Court, in similar circumstances, held as under: "In this case, even though the accused petitioner used knife but had caused only simple injury on the injured Ismail. The depth of this injury is also 1/4 ". He also caused only one injury therefore, In these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the accused petitioner had any intention of causing such a grievous injury which could be dangerous to the life of the injured person. 9. The depth of this injury is also 1/4 ". He also caused only one injury therefore, In these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the accused petitioner had any intention of causing such a grievous injury which could be dangerous to the life of the injured person. 9. At the time of framing the charges, the prosecution is duty-bound to show from the record of the case and the documents collected during the course of investigation that the facts, emerging therefrom constitute the offence for which the accused is charged. From the existing materials on record, I am of the opinion that even from the unrebutted evidence, produced by the prosecution, there is no chance to convict the petitioner Under Section 307, I.P.C. and in this view of the matter, there can hardly be any point for framing the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. against the petitioners and to go through the formalities of the trial, as it will result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioners without serving any cause of justice. 10. Consequently, I partly allow this miscellaneous petition, setaside the order dated November 29, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, so far as framing the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. is concerned, and quash the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower court, so for the framing of the other charges against the Petitioner. *******