JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners have come up to this Court by way of instant revision petition against the order dated 7.5.97 passed by Spcial Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 32/96 whereby, the said Court directed the framing of charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 341, 307, 326, 324 and 379 IPC. The grievance of the petitioners is that the trial court has greviously erred in framing the charge against the accused-petitioners with regard to the aforesaid offences particularly, when from the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/complainant, it is not apparent that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injuries were on the non-vital part of the body. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have stated that from the perusal of Injury Report, FIR and the opinion of the Medical Jurist, it is apparent that the petitioners had the obvious intention of causing death of the deceased. 3. I have examined the Injury Report prepared by the Medial Jurist as well as the FIR and I am of the view that at the stage of framing of charge the trial Court should have confined itself only to the basic question as to whether there is any prima-facie case for proceeding against the accused on the basis of the material on the record i.e., (a) Medico Legal Report, (b) X-ray of the injured and (c) Corroborative evidence of the injury report with the corresponding FIR. 4. I am fortified with the observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others : AIR 1997 (SC) 2041 , wherein, the Apex Court held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to address itself to the question as to whether on the basis of the material on the record there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is any insufficiency of grounds for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. The obvious inference which emerges as a result of the above discussion is that the Court has to basically examine as aforesaid if the same is available on the record and legal presumption can be drawn regarding prima-facie case for framing of the charge against the accused. From the perusal of the injury report, it is apparent that the injured had suffered atleast 10 injuries out of which, Injury Nos. 3 and 4 are on the vital part of the skull and there are atleast three fractures on the vital part of the body. On the basis of the material on the record in the instant case, I am satisfied that there is a prima-facie case for framing of the charge against the accused-petitioners as regards the commission of the above offences. 5. The revision petition being devoid of merit is consequently dismissed. The observations made above however, shall not prejudice the defence of the accused before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to D proceed with the matter expeditiously who deal with and decide the same in accordance with law.Revision Dismissed. *******