JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have come up before this Court by way of revision petition against the impugned order dated 24.6.1998 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge Karauli in Sessions Case No. 33/96 whereby, the trial Court had framed charge against the accused-petitioners by taking cognisance against them for offence punishable under Sections 147, 307/149, 452, 323, 326/149 and 325/149 IPC. The prosecution a story as unfolded from the statements of witnesses briefly stated is that accused-petitioners namely; Ramkesh, Lakhan. Kishori, Sushila and Guddi all residents of Village Dalilpure within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kudgaon, District Karauli had in furtherance of their common object caused grievous injuries by blunt weapons on the person of injured Brijial Meena complainant (PW 4), PW 3 Mohan mother of PW 3 Mohan, PW 5 Jailal and PW 6 Somati. The injured were admitted in Govt. Hospital Karauli where they were treated for their injuries and in the opinion of the Doctor the injuries were grievous in nature caused by sharp as well as blunt object. The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW 1 to PW 12 namely; PW 1 Vishram, PW 2 Kamar Singh, PW 3 Mohan, PW 4 Brijlal, PW 5 Jai Lal, PW 6 Somati, PW 7 Dhanraj, PW 8 Kamal Bai. PW 9 Mohar Singh, PW 10 Kistoori, PW 11 Man Bai and PW 12 Roop Singh out of which, PW 1 Vishram and PW 2 Kamer Singh declared hostile while other witnesses i.e. PW 3 to PW 12 above named have fully supported the prosecution case. In the statement recorded before the trial Court they have categoricily stated that the injuries on their persons, were at the instance of above named accused-petitioners. At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial Court has primarily to see as to whether sufficient grounds are made out for framing the charge against the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Prima-facie, the satisfaction has to be drawn on the basis of the material evidence on the record. At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial Court has primarily to see as to whether sufficient grounds are made out for framing the charge against the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Prima-facie, the satisfaction has to be drawn on the basis of the material evidence on the record. The accused have full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses in their defence but that does not imply that the framing of charge for commission of substantive offences if made out should not be framed against the accused as per the requirement of Section 319, Cr PC. From the perusal of the impugned-order dated 24.6.1998, it is borne out that the trial Court had drawn up a prima-facie view for framing the charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 147, 307/149, 452, 323, 326/149 and 325/149 IPC on the basis of the evidence adduced before it by the prosecution. Out of the aforesaid witnesses at least, three persons have sustained grievous injuries i.e. PW 3 to PW 5. Their version is fully corroborated by other independent witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. PW 7 Dhanraj has deposed in evidence that at least 16 persons had participated in the occurrence out of which, the accused petitioners have been attributed the positive role. 2. As a result of above discussion, I find no justification for interfering with the findings recorded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karaull in Sessions Case No. 33/96 vide order dated 24.6.1998 on the basis of which prima facie view has been drawn up by the learned trial Court as regards the framing of the charge against the accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 147, 307/149, 452, 323, 326/149 and 325/149 IPC. 3. This revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******