JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order of charge dated 10.11.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli by which he has framed charge against all the accused petitioners for offences Under sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC and petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have also been charged for the offence Under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the order dated 10.11.99. 3. Briefly stated, on 1.4.99, a written report was lodged at Police Station Kotputli at 9.00 A.M. by Babulal Yogi on behalf of Rajendra Yogi to the effect that on 31.3.99 in between 8.00 to 9.00 P.M., Ravi, Vijay, Darshan, Jalaluddin, Deepak and Suresh armed with lethal weapons entered into the house of complainant. His grandmother and grandfather were sleeping inside while Rajendra, Gulab and Ramniwas were present in a room. Accused petitioners started hurling abuse and then accused petitioner Ravi exhorted and said " ekjks lkyksa dks ". Then four fires were made. Ravi and Vijay who were armed with fire arms, were firing. Rest of the accused persons were armed with `Barchis'. Three persons suffered injuries by fire arms. It is alleged that Rajendra Singh, Mahara, Rohtash, Prakash and Han also came. They, while going back thrown stones. On this report, FIR No. 229/99 was registered and case was investigated. 4. The case of the accused petitioners is that the complainant party attacked and the report of that case No. 228/99 was got registered in the night. The police did not believe the report of the accused persons and ultimately after investigation submitted challan against petitioners out of whom Hari Chouhan and Rajendra Singh are absconding. During investigation, Ramniwas, Gulab, Dhola, Rakesh and Pooranmal were medically examined and X- rays of various parts of their bodies were taken. It is further alleged that on 5.4.99, Ramniwas died. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as stated above, has framed charges under various sections against the accused petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ramniwas died as a result of septicemia i.e. secondary infection and not as a result of direct injury caused by fire arm. According to him, there is no direct link and nexus with the cause of death. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ramniwas died as a result of septicemia i.e. secondary infection and not as a result of direct injury caused by fire arm. According to him, there is no direct link and nexus with the cause of death. According to him there should be prima facie strong suspicion for framing of the charge. According to him the order framing of charge affects person's liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty of the court to cosider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of charge and in view of special circumstances in this case, the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances will not be in any way travel beyond 324, 325 & 326 or at the most 304 part II IPC and, therefore, the revision should be allowed and the proper directions may be given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the view that of course at this stage I should not express any opinion about the merits of the case but when there is evidence to the effect that it was Ravi, accused petitioner who exhorted and uttered the words " ekjks lkyksa dks " and then four fires were made from the guns and three persons were injured out of whom one died after some time, it is a case in which the charge framed Under section 302 IPC should not be disturbed, of course, it will be determined after the evidence which is going to he led before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as to what ultimately will be the result of the trial but presently I am of the opinion that when there is such evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in framing the charges and the order does not suffer from infirmity. 8. Consequently, there is no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******