JUDGMENT 1. - This Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 6.4.94, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Chittorgarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 307, 148, 447 and 149 Indian Penal Code . 2. The order framing the charges has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during the investigation, do not disclose the commitment of any offence by the accused-petitioners and the learned lower Court has, therefore, committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioners for these offences. In support of its contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over: Bodu Ram v. The State ( 1992 SCC 281 ) and Raju alias Rajendra Prasad and Others (1984 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 151) . The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The injuries found on the frontal region of scalp of injured Bhagwan Lal were simple in nature and there was only a fracture of ulna. The injuries were not found dangerous to life by the Doctor, who examined the injured. There is no opinion of the Doctor to this effect. Even the witnesses have not stated that the injuries were inflicted with an intention to cause death of the injured. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in framing the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners. The order, passed by the learned lower Court, framing the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners, is, therefore, set-aside. But so far as the framing of charges for the other offences is concerned, the order passed by the learned lower Court does not require any interference. The petitioners made an unlawful assembly, participated in the crime and inflicted injuries to Bhagwan Lal and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in framing the charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 447 and 149 Indian Penal Code but the charge under Section 307 IPC, framed by the Trial Court against the petitioners, requires modification. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should re-hear the petitioners and re-frame the appropriate charge in place of the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 5. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioners, is partly allowed. The order framing the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is set-aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to re-hear the petitioners and re-frame the appropriate charge in place of the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The order framing the charges against the petitioners for the remaining offences, i.e., Sections 148,447 and 149 Indian Penal Code does not require any interference.Appeal partly allowed. *******