JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition against the order dated 1-6-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 33/97 by which charges against the petitioners have been framed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 3. On the basis of a Parcha Bayan of Chand Khan recorded on 5-11-1996 First Information Report No. 210/96 was registered for offences under Sections 452 and 323 Indian Penal Code against Alladeen, Ismail, Ayub and Farooq who are petitioners before me. It was alleged that they entered into the house of the complainant and gave beatings to him as well as to his Bhabhi Smt. Jannat. Immediately thereafter they as well as some 7 or 8 persons armed with weapons entered into the hut in field and gave beatings with barchis and sticks. The two places of occurrence are different and the distance is about 2 kms. from each other. however, after investigation, police chargesheeted the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 326 and 307 Indian Penal Code Ismail, accused petitioner had also lodged F.I.R. No. 211/96 against Aleem Khan, Ibrahim Khan and other persons alleging that they gave beatings to his 75 years old father but final report was submitted in this case. Then a complaint was preferred and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after conducting the enquiry took cognizance against the opposite party. The case instituted upon the F.I.R. No. 210/96 was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge where it was pleaded that the cross case may also be tried together and the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order to call the cross case. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no whisper in the parch a bayan of Chand Khan that 7 or 8 persons who are alleged to have taken part in incident had committed any offence. It has further been submitted that the distance between the two places is about 2 kms. and hence they are two separate incidents. He submitted that separate cases should have been registered for the different incidents. It has further been submitted that the distance between the two places is about 2 kms. and hence they are two separate incidents. He submitted that separate cases should have been registered for the different incidents. He also submitted that no case punishable under Sections 307, 148, 325/149, 326/149 and 307/149 Indian Penal Code is made out in the facts and circumstances of this case and charges in the present case should be quashed. So the basic argument is that two incidents are separate and the petitioners should not have been charged for the offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Khivsingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, WLN (UC) 1978 page 316, has been relied upon in which it was held that two distinct offences committed by the sets of accused should be tried separately. Sanwal Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.J. 3549, has been relied upon in which it was held that when two incidents took place at different places at two different times, they could not be said to have been committed in the course of same transaction and hence accused persons could not be charged and tried jointly. It has also been submitted that offences as alleged by the prosecution are not made out and the petitioners should be discharged. Reliance has also been placed on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 505. and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2583. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the occurrence took place on the same night at about 3.00 A.M. and at the dead hour of night. Accused petitioners came at the house of Chand Khan and belaboured him as well as Smt. Jannat first. This did not satisfy them and in the same series they immediately rushed towards the field where they belaboured Aleem Khan, Mst. Amtu and Mst. Rehmat. Thus, the total persons who were injured were five. Aleem Khan sustained 10 injuries out of which three are grievous and a fracture was found on parietal region. Chand Khan sustained six injuries out of which two are on head. Smt. Amtu sustained seven injuries out of which two are grievous in nature. Smt. Jannat sustained one injury which is of grievous nature. Aleem Khan sustained 10 injuries out of which three are grievous and a fracture was found on parietal region. Chand Khan sustained six injuries out of which two are on head. Smt. Amtu sustained seven injuries out of which two are grievous in nature. Smt. Jannat sustained one injury which is of grievous nature. Smt. Rehmat sustained three injuries and one injury is on her head. It has been submitted that since the offences were committed in the same series and the injuries were such that amount to offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the order does not call for any interference. It has been submitted that strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. So, the question is whether the offences were committed during the same transaction and the second question is whether offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out or not? 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is sufficient evidence on record that the occurrence took place in the same transaction and firstly Chand Khan and Smt. Jannat were given beatings at the residential house and thereafter immediately the accused persons are said to have gone to the field where they gave beatings to other injured persons. In Lala Ram v. Idrish & Ors., WLC (Raj.) UC 1998 page 670, it was observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case when injured sustained left frontal and left parietal bone injuries, discharge from Section 307 Indian Penal Code was not proper because Medical Officer did not categorically observed that injury sustained was likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature. I find from the evidence that the transaction is the same and the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out, therefore, the petitioners cannot be discharged. So far as trial of cross cases is concerned, it is well settled that if there are cross cases, they should be tried together.Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and It is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******