JUDGMENT 1. - By his order dated 27.1.1998 Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat discharged accused persons. Revision No. 149/1998 was preferred by Bhana Ram complainant while Revision No. 293/1998 has been preferred by State, i will decide both of them together by this order. 2. Facts may be narrated as follows : Smt. Anadi reported to police that she and her husband Bhana Ram were asleep in the chowk of their house in the night falling between 11th and 12th May, 1995. At about 3.00 A.M. acid was thrown on them. Her face, chest, legs, body as well as private parts were burnt. Similarly body of her husband was burnt. She saw a man running. Report was lodged at 4.00 A.M. on 12.5.1995 and a case under Section 324, 307 IPC was registered at police station Sojat City. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.5.1995 wherein she stated that the accused petitioners had committed offence whom she had seen and that they were on inimical terms. Bhana Ram stated that the offence was committed by Girdhari and Nihal Chand who had inimical terms with him and his family. He suspected them to be the offenders. Dying declaration of Smt. Anadi was recorded on 12.7.1995 in which she named Girdhari and Nihal Chand. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted after her death and the case was changed from attempt to murder to murder. 3. Learned counsel for complainant and Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not refer to this charge sheet. I find that it was submitted on 11.9.1995 and was ordered to be placed before the officer on 26.9.1995. All papers were put up before him on 17.10.1995. They were on record when he passed impugned order. He carelessly ignored the supplementary charge sheet submitted on 11.9.1995 together with documents including medical certificate of Ahmedabad Hospital regarding death of Anadi on 6.8.1995. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order should not be interfered with as an accused is presumed to be innocent and the evidence on record was such that the ultimate result may be acquittal. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Chhotelal & Anr., 1998 Cr.LR (Raj.) page 561 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order should not be interfered with as an accused is presumed to be innocent and the evidence on record was such that the ultimate result may be acquittal. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Chhotelal & Anr., 1998 Cr.LR (Raj.) page 561 . It was further submitted that the statement of Smt. Anadi recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be regarded as a dying declaration because the occurrence took place on 12.5.1995 while Anadi died due to burns some time on 6.8.1995. Reliance has been placed on Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1997(2) WLC (Raj.) page 170 . But this citation does not help the accused respondents because it was not proved in this case that declarant died directly from injuries sustained. The citation is distinguishable. In the case in hand there is evidence on record that Smt. Anadi was admitted in Government Hospital, Jodhpur wherefrom she was shifted to Forensic Medicine Department, B.J. Medical College Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. It is certified after performing her postmortem examination that her death is due to shock as a result of burns. Then the learned counsel for the respondents relied on 1985 WLN (UC) page 221. Hazarilal & Banwarilal v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was observed that when there was no lota of evidence against an accused for abetting to commit suicide, charge should not be framed only because police had filed challan. This citation has no bearing on the facts of this case. I find from the evidence on record that the acid was thrown on Smt. Anadi and her husband. Anadi died due to shock caused by burns on 6.8.1995. Bhana Ram also suffered a good number of injuries which were acid burns. The evidence collected by the prosecution showed that the accused petitioners were on inimical terms that Smt. Anadi named both the accused petitioners in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her dying declaration. Non mentioning of names in FIR is not very material at this stage. FIR is merely initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is well settled that the court cannot shift the evidence at the stage of charge. It has simply to see a prima facie case. In 1997 Cr.LJ page 2248, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others . FIR is merely initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. It is well settled that the court cannot shift the evidence at the stage of charge. It has simply to see a prima facie case. In 1997 Cr.LJ page 2248, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others . Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence of that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. In Brijkumar Sharma v. State and others, 1998 Cr.LJ page 1449 , this Court held that the charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Looking from these angles I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error in discharging the accused persons. From the record prima facie case under Sections 307 and 302 IPC is made out against respondents Girdharilal and Nihal Chand who shall be tried for the same. 5. Consequently, revisions are allowed and the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat dated 27.1.1998 is hereby set-aside. He is directed to frame relevant charges against the accused respondents and hold ' trial against them. Parties are directed to appear before learned Sessions Judge on 12.4.1999. 6. Before parting with I say that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sojat, Shri Baldev Puri Goswami carelessly ignored the supplementary charge sheet and was ignorant of law regarding framing of charge in i sessions cases. His explanation be obtained and placed before me in chamber on 2nd April, 1999.Revision Allowed-Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat Called Upon To Explain By 2.4.1999. *******