JUDGMENT 1. - This revision-petition is directed against the order dated August 17, 1988, passed by the sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge refused to frame charge under Section 337. I.P.C. against the accused-respondents and sent the case because under Section 223 Criminal Procedure Code to the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Sirohi. 2. On November 18, 1986 at about 7.00 p.m. a First Information Report was registered at the Police Station, Sirohi, on the statement of Ishwar Lal, recorded by Jogsingh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, in the Government Hospital, Sirohi, where in it was stated that on that very day, at about 7.00 p.m., when his brother Kailash was repairing the tube-light, at that time Rewad Ram s/o Shri Kishan came in front of their door and asked Kailash what was the matter and thereafter some altercation took-place and accused hurled abuses and went away. After sometime, he along with Kishan, Poonam, Om Prakash, Laxman, Magan s/o Rewad, Smt. Gaggi w/o Rewad and the wives of Prem, Kishan, Laxman and Omprakash came there armed with deadly weapons. They took at Kailash out side the Pole and started beating him with lates. The informant was in the Pole and he tried to rescue Kailash. The accused, also, gave beatings to the complainant. The complainant and Kailash raised alarm on which Prabhu Dayal, Basant, Hajari, Bhuri and Ratan came there and rescued them, these persons, who came there to rescue Kailash and Ishwar, also, received injuries. On the basis of this report, a came as registered under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 23, I.P.C. and the Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused persons under Sections 307, 462, 328, 323, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, as the challan was preferred against the accused under section 307, I.P.C. also. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 17, 1988, came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. were not made-out and he, therefore, sent the case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, for trial. It is against this order that the present revision-petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 17, 1988, came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. were not made-out and he, therefore, sent the case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, for trial. It is against this order that the present revision-petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused respondents. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower Court has committed an error in not framing the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. against the accused-respondents, particularly in the circumstances when all the witnesses have stated that the accused persons gave beatings with an intention to kill Kailash and the other injured persons and the Ishwar Lal received as many as six injuries and but of these injuries, three are on the head and one on the chest. According to the doctor, the injuries received by Ishwar Lal were dangerous to life. The other persons of the complainant party, also, received numerous injuries. He, therefore, submits that looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation, the ingredients of the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. have been established and the learned lower Court was not Justified in not framing the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. It is, no doubt, true that at the time of framing the charge, the true veracity of the facts and the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously looked-into. At the stage of framing the charge, if there is a strong suspicion then the charge should be framed. At that stage, it is to be seen whether the unrebutted evidence which the prosecution is to adduce, make-out a case for conviction. If it is so then the charge should be framed. At the stage of framing the charge, if there is a strong suspicion then the charge should be framed. At that stage, it is to be seen whether the unrebutted evidence which the prosecution is to adduce, make-out a case for conviction. If it is so then the charge should be framed. But if the unrebutted evidence it self does not make-out the case that the accused has committed the offence, then the charge should not be framed in the present case, the witnesses have specifically stated that the accused-party inflicted injuries with an intention to kill the members of the complainant-party and the complainant party received so many injuries. Kailash received three injuries and out of which one was on the right parietal region, one on the forehead and the another one on the left fore-arm. Prabhu Dayal received one injury on the right neck. Basant s/o Kishan lal received as many as five injuries, out of which one is on the fore-head; Ratan Bai received one injury, which was a bone-deep injury on the right side of skull frontal region; Smt. Baburi received one injury; Ishwar Lal s/o Kishan Lal received as many as six injuries and out of which three are on the head; Kailash Lal received as many as ten injuries, out of wish one was on the head. It was opined by the doctor that one of his injuries was dangerous to life. The accused-party came armed with really weapons with a pre-meditation and inflicted injuries on the members of the complainant-party pray of the body selected by the accused-persons and the way in which the beatings were given, prima fact speak about the intention of the accused and a suspicion at this stage can even form that basis for framing the charge under section 307, I.P.C. 7. The result is that this revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated August 17, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, is set-aside and the case is sent back to him for framing a charge under section 307, I.P.C. also alongwith the other charges.Revision Allowed. *******