JUDGMENT The petitioners(injured) have preferred this revision-petition against the order dated 17.9.1990, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in Sessions Trial No.103/90 (State of M.P. Versus Mansingh and Others), has framed charges under section 324 of I.P.C. against the present non-applicant Mansingh, charges under sections324 and 324/34 I.P.C. against the present non-applicant No.3 Halkey Bir and u/Ss. 324 and 324/34 of I.P.C. against the present non-applicant No.2 Bhagwan Singh; Whereas, according to the applicants charges under section 307, read with section 34 of I.P.C. and also charges u/Ss. 450/452 I.P.C. should have been framed against the non-applicants 1,2 and 3 in place of the charges framed as aforesaid against the non-applicants 1, 2 and 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in Sessions Trial No.103/90. On behalf of the applicants, it has been submitted that there was old standing anmity between the parties prior to this incident and that the non-applicants 1 to 3 had committed house trespass, armed with deadly weapons, and there was common intention for committing murder and, so, the addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, should be directed to frame charges under section 307/34 IPC and also under section 450/452 IPC against the non-applicants 1 to 3 in place of charges u/s. 324, 324/34 and 323 of I.P.C. On behalf of the non-applicants 1, 2 and 3, it has been submitted that the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara,has committed no illegality in framing the charges and that, there was no material on record for framing charges u/Ss. 307/34 of I.P.C. and u/Ss. 450/452 of I.P .C. against the aforesaid non-applicants 1, 2and 3 and, so, the order dated 17.9.1990 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, calls for no interference. It has further been submitted that the evidence of ten prosecution witnesses has already been recorded in Sessions Trial No.103/90 and, in case, the charges were to be amended, the applicants could apply before the said Court for amendment of the charges, because, the charges could be amended at any stage before judgment. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existances of all the ingredient" constituting the alleged offence. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existances of all the ingredient" constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept that the presocution stages as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the proved probability of the case, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in A I R 1990 S C 1962. Now, in the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, had heard both the parties and had also considered the documents before framing charges and, so, it cannot be said that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, has committed any illegality in framing the charges against the non-applicants 1,2 and 3 in this revision petition. Besides this, it is clear that evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses has already been recorded in the case and, so, in case, the applicants feel that the charges require to be amended, or that fresh charges are to be framed, in that case, they are at liberty to apply to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, for amendment of charges, or for framing of any additional charges. With these observations, the revision petition shall stand dismissed. The office is directed to send back the record of Sessions Trial No.103 of 1990 without any delay, to the Court concerned, so that further proceedings are not held up. AIR 1990 SC 1962 followed.