JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision impugns the order dated 23rd Sept. 1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby charge under section 147, 307, 325, 324/34 and 323 IPC was framed against the accused petitioners. 2. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appealing for the petitioners canvassed that the impugned order is perverse and against the material on record. The allegations against the accused persons in the FIR are that they inflicted injuries on the person of injured by farsi, which is a sharp edged weapon but in the medical examination of the injured no fatal injury from the sharp edged weapon was found. The prosecution witnesses developed a new case that the accused persons inflicted spade blow by reverse side. This improved version should not be accepted and even otherwise from the statements of the witnesses it can be easily inferred that the accused petitioners have no intention to cause death of the injured person and no offence even exfacie under section 307 IPC is made cut. Investigating officer made a query in respect of injury to which medical officer replied that the injury sustained by the injured could not result in death of injured person. 3. I have been taken through the injury report and the statements of the witnesses. Reliance was placed on Nanchhu Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1990 RCC 87) , Khom Chand v. State of Raj., (1990 RCC 333) . 4. On the other hand Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that at the time of framing charge meticulous consideration of evidence and material is not required. 5. Reliance was placed on Akbar v. The State of Raj. and others ( 1989 (1) RLR 102 ) , Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1990 SC 121 ) and Mohd. Akbar Dar and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others ( AIR 1981 SC 1548 ) . 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. In Nanchhua Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court (Hon'ble Mrs. Akbar Dar and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others ( AIR 1981 SC 1548 ) . 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. In Nanchhua Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court (Hon'ble Mrs. M. Kapur, J. as she then was) indicated thus- "The prosecution has to place material on record at the initial stage so that the court may arrive at a conclusion about the offence which could be said to be made out. The prosecution cannot be allowed to say that something will come out during the trial so the charge to be framed should be for the graver offence, unless there is material to show that the charge should be framed for the graver offence." 8. In Khom Chand v. State of Raj. (supra), this Court (Hon'ble Justice Kanta Bhatnagar as she then was) observed that if the accused who was having sharp edged weapon, used it from the blunt side, the offence' cannot be said to fall within the ambit of section 307 IPC. 9. In Akbar v. The State of Raj and others (supra) this Court (Hon'ble V.S. Dave as he then was) propounded thus : "Question of framing charge under a particular section depends on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. In broad aspect the court has to consider as to whether there is sufficient material collected by the investigating agency which discloses prima-facie case to frame a charge. It is not a consideration before the court as to whether the case would result in conviction or acquittal and, therefore, neither it is obligatory nor expected of the court to consider in details and weigh the evidence in sensitive balance the evidence collected by investigation on record. But in the language of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, even if there is strong suspicion founded upon the material available to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of ingredients constitute the offence alleged which may justify framing of the charge against the accused in respect of commission of that offence." 10. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and others (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that at the stage of framing of charge meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by court was not required. 11. In Mohd. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and others (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that at the stage of framing of charge meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by court was not required. 11. In Mohd. Akbar Dar and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that at the time of framing of the charge the court should not enter into meticulous considerations of evidence and materials. 12. A cursory look at the material on record demonstrates that injured Bhuri Singh sustained as many as five injuries, out of which three are lacerated wounds on the occipital region and fronto parietal region. Injured Khillo Ram sustained lacerated wound on fronto parietal region. Injured Khemchand sustained five injuries out of which three are lacerated wounds. Meticulous analysis of the material and evidence collected during investigation is not required at this stage. 13. The contention of Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the accused petitioners can be well appreciated during trial. Therefore, subscribing the ratio propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari (supra) and Mohd. Akbar Dar and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court June 8,1998. *******