JUDGMENT 1. - Heard and perused the case record.The revision by the State and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Sardar Singh, injured, petitioner, are directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kotputli, passed under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. and directing that the charges for offence under Sections 147 and 323 IPC be framed against the accused in the case and they be tried accordingly. By the aforesaid order the learned Sessions Judge did not find a prima-facie case for offences under Section 307 IPC against any of the accused persons and that has caused grievance to the State as well as to the injured person. Since an order framing charges or directing to frame charge is an order revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the State had already preferred a revision against such order, the petitioner's petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is also directed to be treated as a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. the learned counsel for the petitioner Sardar Singh shall assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter before this court. 2. On 14.4.95 at 12.20 a.m. Sardar Singh reported to the SHO, p/s Pragpura that on the previous night when he was sitting at own house Suraj Mai Mahajan informed him of a quarrel having broken out at the house of Sadhu Ram. Sardar Singh happened to be the Sarpanch of the village panchayat and, therefore, he went to the house of the Sadhu Ram and when he was inquiring about the incident the accused in the present case is alleged to have opened an attack.................Singh and caused him injuries with blunt weapon. On the basis of this report Crime No. 70/95 for offence Under section 147, 451, 323 IPC was registered by the police. After investigation of the case the accused were, however, charge-sheeted for having committed offence punishable under section 307 IPC as well, as in the course of investigation the police collected evidence to the effect that the injuries caused to Sardar Singh were dangerous to his life and, therefore, a case of attempt of murder was made out. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Addl. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Kotputali who after hearing the parties Under section 227/228 Cr.P.C. formed the opinion that the accused persons may be tried for the offences Under section 147 and 323 IPC only as there was no sufficient material for framing the charge for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons. 3. The learned counsel for the State and for the injured invited my attention to the medical report and opinion of the Doctors in respect to the likely consequences of the injuries sustained by Sardar Singh, injured, and submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have shifted the evidence in a way so as to record a finding of not guilty of the accused for offence under Section 307 IPC. In this behalf the view expressed by this court in the case of Lala Ram v. Idris & Ors. S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 493/97 dated 12.5.98 and Dhanna Ram v. Rohitash & Ors. S.B. Cr. Revision Pet. No. 93/96 dated 27.8.97 here referred to. On the other hand Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents highlighted the fact that when the injured was examined by a medical board, constituted for the purpose, by Board clearly opined that none of the two injuries, sustained by Sardar Singh was grievous in nature. On the basis of such a report of the medical board it was submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in toning down the case and remitting the same to the learned Addl. C.J.M., Kotputali, for trial of the accused for offence under section 147 and 323 IPC. 4. It is well settled that at the time of hearing the parties Under section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. the court is required to evaluate the material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclosed the existence of the ingredients constituting the offence, alleged to have been committed. The court may for that limited purpose sift the evidence and it is not expected at that stage of the proceedings evaluate the evidence on the record in a way so as to record a final finding about the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed in the case. The court may for that limited purpose sift the evidence and it is not expected at that stage of the proceedings evaluate the evidence on the record in a way so as to record a final finding about the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed in the case. The Court should not scrutinise and examine the worth and value of the offence with a view to record final verdict about the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed in the case or the part played by a particular accused in committing such offence (vide AIR 1965 SC 843 & 1997(4) SCC 393 ). 5. in the instant case when Sardar Singh was examined by the medical board/jurist at the local hospital at Kotputali at 1.15 a.m. on 14.4.95 he was found to be having three injuries on his person. The Doctor could not opine about the nature of any of the injuries and he, therefore, referred the matter for the opinion of the Radiologist. However, he had observed that the patient had lost his consciousness for 15-20 minutes and there was history of vomitting 5-7 times and complaint of vertigo. At the time of his examination by the Doctor the patient was, however, fully conscious. On the case referred to him by the medical jurist Dr. R.N. Koolwal had reported that there was evidence of fracture of left parital temporal region of the skull of the injured. It appears that some dispute arose between the parties regarding the correctness of the opinion of the Doctor, expressed about the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured. There upon the investigation appears to have been changed and the injured re-examined on 20.5.95. At that time the Doctor examining the injured found healed wound on the right side of the fore-head of the injured which apparently stood divided into two. The other injury was a lacerarted wound with scab formation on the left parital region. X-ray examination also appears to have been carried on to determine the nature of the injuries and on conduction such examination the Radiologist reported that no bony injury is seen. The learned Addl. The other injury was a lacerarted wound with scab formation on the left parital region. X-ray examination also appears to have been carried on to determine the nature of the injuries and on conduction such examination the Radiologist reported that no bony injury is seen. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge took into account the later report of the Doctors and formed the opinion that since Sardar Singh, injured, had sustained simple injuries only, no prima-facie case for framing charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 6. It is evident that in forming his opinion the learned Addl. Sessions Judge appears to have proceeded to sift the evidence in such a way that he rejected the report of the first Doctor, who had the first opportunity to examine the injured just a few hours after the occurrence. It may be noted that on being examined by the Doctor at Kotputali, the injured was found having as many as three injuries on his person and on conducting the Radiological Examination, fracture was reported to have been found of the left parital bone. Thus there were two reports of two Doctors and possibly two Board of Doctors in the present case and a correct opinion regarding the reliability of either of the two reports could have properly be made at the trial of the case and not at the stage of framing of the charge. 7. From the injuries sustained by the injured, it was evident that repeated blows were given to him with blunt weapon his head. The repetition of the blows may also indicate an intention on the part of the assailant. In any case for constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that a fracture on the vital part of the body should necessarily exist. The Doctor had reported that the injuries found on the person of the injured were dangerous to his life. Under these circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have evaluated the evidence in the manner he did. Prima-facie, there was sufficient evidence to frame a charge for offence under Section 307 IPC in the present case. 8. In the result, the order made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is hereby set-aside. Under these circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have evaluated the evidence in the manner he did. Prima-facie, there was sufficient evidence to frame a charge for offence under Section 307 IPC in the present case. 8. In the result, the order made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is hereby set-aside. He is directed to re-hear the parties and pass appropriate to a proper orders in the matter in the light of the observations made here in above.Both the petitions are disposed accordingly. The record of the lower court be sent back immediately. *******