JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have come up by way of instant revision petition wherein, they have challenged the impugned-order dated 14.9.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 104/98 whereby, the trial Court has directed framing of charge against the accused on the basis of the cognizance taken against them for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 IPC. The petitioners have assailed the impugned-order on the grounds inter alia that the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on the record particularly, the medical evidence and since the evidence of witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution is not corroborated by medical evidence, the cognizance against the accused for the aforesaid offences is not sustainable and the proceedings initiated against them deserve to be dropped. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the 5 petitioners, I have referred to the relevant findings of the trial Court from which, it is borne out that accused-petitioners who are 8 in number, were fully armed with deadly weapons like; lathi, pharsa and Kulhadi who had as per the prosecution case pounced upon the complainant with said weapons and had assaulted the complainant resulting in grievous injuries sustained by him. The very object of their coming with deadly weapons and the manner in which they caused grievous injuries on the complainant, in my view, does not rule out their mens-rea or criminal intention to cause grievous injuries on the person of the Injured. As many as, 7 persons received injuries from the side of the complainant. This fact is also borne out from the injury sheet of injured Mangilal and Badri dated 17.2.1998 prepared by the Doctor who examined the injured. From the perusal of the injury sheet/report of injured-Mangilal, it is borne out that he suffered one lacerated wound 5cm x 1/2 cm bone deep apart from 3 abrasions. This fact is also apparent from the X- ray report of Mangilal dated 18.2.1998. From the perusal of the injury sheet/report of injured-Mangilal, it is borne out that he suffered one lacerated wound 5cm x 1/2 cm bone deep apart from 3 abrasions. This fact is also apparent from the X- ray report of Mangilal dated 18.2.1998. Hence, in my view, it will be improper to observe at this stage that accused had no definite intention or mens-rea to cause injuries which in the ordinary course of nature would have sufficient to cause death of the injured but, having regard to -the nature of injuries sustained by the injured in view of the medical evidence which has been perused, prima-facie, It appears that accused had come fully armed and prepared to cause injuries on the person of the injured Mangilal and Badri. Thus, in my opinion, the finding as recorded by the trial Court for framing of charge against the accused for commission of aforesaid offences, do not call for any interference. 4. My aforesaid observations are fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. : 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 462 wherein the Apex Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to arrive at prima-facie view after considering the material available on record with a view to assess the culpability of accused while possibility of conviction need not be taken into account. 5. In my view, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully attracted to the instant case since the trial Court after recording well reasoned findings, has directed framing of charge after assessing the culpability of the accused for. offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 IPC. 6. This revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused expeditiously in accordance with law.Revision Dismissed. *******