JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Two Revision Petitions No. 10 of 1992, Sidhu Ram v. Ramesh Kumar and others and 74 of 1992, State of H, P. v. Ramesh Kumar and others, have been filed by the complainant and the State of Himachal Pradesh against the order dated 6-2-1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1991, discharging the accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and framing charge under section 304, Part II, I. P. C. against accused Ramesh Kumar and against the remaining accused under section 304, Part II read with section 109, I P. C. Both the revisions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 3-7-1991 at about 8.00 p m. accused Ramesh Kumar arrived with a truck No HIU-1431 in his village Ajouli Tehsil and District Una from Nangal and parked the truck on road side near his house. After a short while, Ravi Kant son of complainant Sidhu Ram, resident of the same village also arrived there with his tractor, Complainant Sidhu Ram and father of the accused Ramesh Kumar are real brothers and have got a common cow-shed. Ravi Kant desired accused Ramesh to remove the truck from that place and to carry it forward or backward in order to enable his tractor to pass. It is alleged that there was a hot exchange of words between the accused Ramesh Kumar and Ravi Kant and in the meantime, one Shiv Kumar owner of the truck also reached there, who made them to reconcile. At about 1100 p. m., Ashok Kumar other son of the complainant Sidhu Ram visited the common tethering place (Barra). After a little while, the complainant on hearing cries of Ashok Kumar reached at the spot and found accused Ramesh Kumar, Som Nath, Rakesh Kumar and Shadi Lai catching hold of Ashok Kumar and hitting him with fist: blows. In the meantime, accused Ramesh Kumar left for his house running and brought a knife and inflicted knife blow on the person of Ashok Kumar which was sustained by him in his chest. When Sidhu Ram intervened, he got a push as a result of which, he fell down on the earth and sustained injury on his left check and then all the accused ran away from the spot. When Sidhu Ram intervened, he got a push as a result of which, he fell down on the earth and sustained injury on his left check and then all the accused ran away from the spot. Ashok Kumar sustained injury with the knife and fell down on the earth and became unconscious. He was removed in the truck by Sidhu Ram and his other sons Naresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar to the Nangal hospital but on the way Ashok Kumar succumbed to the injuries. His dead-body was brought back. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which F. I. R. No. 217/91 was registered at Police Station, Una, under section 302 read with section 34,1. P. G. against the accused. The dead-body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Doctor opined that the death was caused due to an injury to right lung leading to internal haemorrhage and shock. Investigation was conducted by the police officer. During investigation, it was found that the relation between the complainant and Shadi Lal were strained on account of dispute regarding residential plot. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was presented against the accused before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial The learned Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the accused for the offences aforesaid. Complainant Sidhu Ram father of the deceased and the State of H. P. are aggrieved against the order of discharge under section 302 read with 34, I. P. C. passed by the trial Court and have filed these revision petitions. 3. We have heard Shri Jagdish Vats and Shri B. P. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri N. K, Thakur learned Counsel for the accused and also perused the police record, 4. Shri Vats vehemently contended that fatal blow was inflicted on the vital part of the body of the deceased by accused Ramesh Kumar while other accused helped him by catching hold of the deceased. Shri Vats vehemently contended that fatal blow was inflicted on the vital part of the body of the deceased by accused Ramesh Kumar while other accused helped him by catching hold of the deceased. He submits that the act committed by the accused with the intention of causing bodily injury which was inflicted on the chest of the deceased and that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased and, therefore, the case clearly falls under Clause (3) of section 300, I. P. C. He has also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which is not warranted at the stage of framing a charge At that stage even on a very strong or grave suspicion founded upon materials, a charge can be framed. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court, namely, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 ; Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, 1979 Cr LJ’ 1390 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, 1979 Cr LJ 154 and Babubhai Ranchodbhai Patel and another v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 1 SCC 410. 5. The law is well settled that finer appreciation of law and facts involved in the case is to be avoided at the stage of framing of charge. The manner of shifting of evidence and the yardstick to measure these at the stage of charge and at the end of the trial are different. The giving of any benefit of doubt on the material collected by the police in view of the possible defence of the accused, which may not be positive at the stage of the charge, has to be avoided. The Court of Sessions cannot appreciate and scrutinise the facts in a strict manner as is done at the end of the trial. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, in regard to sections 227 and 228, Cr. P. C. the guidelines in the below quoted passage are given, which can be referred beneficially : "...... The Court of Sessions cannot appreciate and scrutinise the facts in a strict manner as is done at the end of the trial. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, in regard to sections 227 and 228, Cr. P. C. the guidelines in the below quoted passage are given, which can be referred beneficially : "...... ..Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deriding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code, At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to, the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to, the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not, if the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt, the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 and not under section 227." 6. Similarly, in para 18 of the judgment in Supdt. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 and not under section 227." 6. Similarly, in para 18 of the judgment in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal w Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, 1979 Cr LJ 1390 (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :-— "It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged ; may justify the framing of charge against the accused m respect of the commission of that offence. 7. Applying the principles enunciated in these decisions, it has to be seen whether on the basis of the material on record the charge framed against the accused can be sustained. A look at the F. I. R. and statements of the witnesses placed with the challan, it is clear that accused Rarnesh Kumar or any other accused were not armed with any weapon at the time when they had allegedly caught-hold of deceased and further according to the prosecution story itself, accused Ramesh went running to his house from the spot, brought a knife and then inflicted a single knife blow which landed in the chest of the deceased, which injury proved to be fatal. The quarrel took place at the spur of the moment and without any intention or premeditation to cause the death of Ashok Kumar. Had there been any intention on the part of accused Ramesh or any other accused to cause death of Ashok Kumar, they could have come on the spot, armed with weapons but all of them were unarmed. The opinion of the doctor also does not show that the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature and cause his death. The learned Sessions Judge has correctly charge-sheeted the accused for the alleged offence and we find no infirmity or illegality in the order. 8. It is pertinent to state here that accused Ramesh had sustained injury on his head during the occurrence but the Investigating Officer omitted to get him medically examined. The accused Ramesh Kumar presented an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Una who passed an order for his medical examination and X-ray He was medically examined in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and according to doctor, three injuries were found on his person out of which one wound was noticed over the left side of the scalp. The prosecution tried to explain the injuries on the person of accused Ramesh Kumar by bringing forward the story of pelting stones by the inhabitants of the village but on the other hand, it did not choose to place on the file the medical, certificate of this accused. Neither in the F I R, nor in the supplementary statement of complainant Sidhu Ram, there is a mention regarding pelting of the stones by any members of the complainant party or any inhabitants of the village upon the accused Ramesh Kumar and he resultantly sustained injuries. Similarly, there is no mention of such incident in the statements of two brothers of the deceased namely, Naresh and Vijay Kumar. 9. Similarly, there is no mention of such incident in the statements of two brothers of the deceased namely, Naresh and Vijay Kumar. 9. Shri Naresh Thakur learned Counsel for the accused has vehemently urged that the investigation in this case is one sided and partisan and the investigating officer did not place on record the medical certificate alongwith other papers leading to medical treatment of accused Raraesh Kumar with the challan papers, We find from the record that the medical certificate alongwith medical treatment papers relating to accused Ramesh Kumar lying with the Incharge of the Judicial Lock up were requisitioned and got placed on the file of learned Sessions Judge. At this stage, we are not to consider the defence of the accused but have confined our discussion to the material on record in proof of the charge. We are of the view that on the basis of the record, there does not arise even a strong or grave suspicion of the commission of the offence under section 302 read with 34, I. P. C by the accused. We left it to the accused to raise his plea of defence before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider about the relevancy of the medical certificate and other medical treatment papers of the accused Ramesh Kumar at the time of the trial of the case. 10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. The record of the case be sent back immediately to the learned Sessions Judge, Una for its trial expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. Before parting with the judgment, we want to make it clear that whatever view has been expressed above is limited to the extent of charge and is based on the limited material available on the file of the trial Court in the form of the reports under section 173, Cr. P. G., documents and copies supplied to the accused. The trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit uninfluenced by our observations made hereinabove. Revision petition dismissed.