ORDER: The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in S.C.No.23 of 1999 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Pondicherry and they have preferred this revision aggrieved against the charges framed against them. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The respondent on the basis of a complaint by one Murugan, son of Antony of Govindasalai, Pondicherry for alleged offences under Secs.147, 148, 308, 324, I.P.C. and Secs.25 and 27 of the Arms Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry in P.R.C.No.16 of 1999. The petitioners were committed after preliminary enquiry to take their trial before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. The case was taken on file and charges were framed against them and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. The charges framed against them are wholly misconceived. There is not even an iota of material in the documents furnished to them and relied upon by the respondent to make out a case of attempt to commit cuplable homicide punishable under Sec.308, I.P.C. The learned Judge instead of entertaining the petition filed by them, had heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent and after hearing the parties, passed an order dismissing the suggestions made by them and had framed the charges inclusive of Sec.308, I.P.C. Aggrieved against this order dated 27.4.1999, the present revision is filed relating to the charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. only. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the charges were framed by the Court below after hearing the parties and there are materials to frame charge against the petitioners under Sec.308, I.P.C. When once the charges have been framed, the petitioners have to face the trial and there are no grounds to delete the charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. 4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? 6.Point: On 11.7.1996 at about 10.00 hours in the premises of Hotel Emiraj situated at St.Theresa Street, Pondicherry. accused 1 to 7 petitioners came in a Maruti car bearing registration No.TN-09-2287 and dashed against an auto, which was parked in the premises. The said auto belonged to one Murugan and he in turn questioned the driver of the Maruti car why he could not drive the car slowly. There was exchange of words between them. accused 1 to 7 petitioners came in a Maruti car bearing registration No.TN-09-2287 and dashed against an auto, which was parked in the premises. The said auto belonged to one Murugan and he in turn questioned the driver of the Maruti car why he could not drive the car slowly. There was exchange of words between them. The accused joined together and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the said Murugan. Then, Murugan went and brought his friends namely, Arul and Jayabal, auto drivers of that locality for questioning the accused. Accused 1 and 2 attacked Murugan and Jayapal with hands and Murugan sustained injuries: on his left elbow and also on the neck. Accused 3 to 7 armed with dangerous and deadly weapons namely, knives and the 6th accused attacked Arul with knife and caused injuries. When the crowd gathered, the accused, left the weapons in the car and ran away. Accused 1 and 2 also shouted to the other accused to attack the injured persons. The injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, where they were treated as outpatients. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that no case under Sec.308, I.P.C. has been made out since the injured Arul and Murugan had sustained only simple injuries. He further pointed out that if the accused had any common object to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then the injured might not have escaped with minor injuries. The Court below after looking into the first information report, 161 statement as well as the wound certificates, framed a charge against the petitioners inclusive of Sec.308, I.P.C. It is stated that the very fact that they were in possession of highly dangerous weapons and they used them in the commission of the crime would not entitle the accused to plead for discharge them from framing of charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. The lower Court also adverted that only during trial, it will be able to ascertain the truth. It is well settled proposition of law that for constituting an offence under Secs.307 and 308, I.P.C., the nature of injury alone is not the criteria. There are various other facts which should be taken into consideration. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that for constituting an offence under Secs.307 and 308, I.P.C., the nature of injury alone is not the criteria. There are various other facts which should be taken into consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitions contended that a reading of the complaint does not disclose any of the ingredients of Sec.299, I.P.C. namely, that they had any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Five out of the seven accused were armed with knives, but they did not utter a single word against the complainant threatening to kill him. There cannot be any direct evidence regarding the intention of the assailants to cause the death of the person attacked, the weapon used, the nature of injury sustained, etc. From the materials available including the wound certificates, assuming without admitting the participation of the assailants, there are no material to frame a charge against accused 1, 2 and 6 for an offence under Sec.308, I.P.C. The Court below has committed the factual error in saying that accused 1 to 8 were armed with dangerous weapons. The injured Arul has not stated before the doctor that he was assaulted with a knife. The Court below has erroneously charged for an offence under Sec.308, I.P.C. driving them to face the trial before the Sessions Court. He further stated that there is no material to frame a charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that it is only a matter of evidence and with the available material charges have been framed inclusive of Sec.308, I.P.C. The dangerous weapons seized revealed that they were of 60 cms, 50 cms, 68 cms and 39 cms in length. It is only under such circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the charges have to be framed against the accused under Secs.147, 148, 308, 324, I.P.C. and under Sec.27 of the Arms Act read with Sec.149, I.P.C. and, accordingly, the charges were framed. 10. It is only under such circumstances, the Court below came to the conclusion that the charges have to be framed against the accused under Secs.147, 148, 308, 324, I.P.C. and under Sec.27 of the Arms Act read with Sec.149, I.P.C. and, accordingly, the charges were framed. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision reported in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018, wherein it was observed as follows: “It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a Finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Sec.227 or S.228 of the Code, At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the places of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 11. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Kanti Bhadra Sha v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 522, that if the trial Court decides to frame charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself prima facie shows that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. These decisions are applicable to the case on hand. 12. Framing of charge itself prima facie shows that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. These decisions are applicable to the case on hand. 12. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid discussion that based on the available materials and after perusal of the statements recorded during investigation, the Court below has framed the charges inclusive of Sec.308, I.P.C. The Court below has also given sufficient reasons for framing a charge like this. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted to give an interpretation that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the offence of this type and, as such, the charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. cannot be framed. According to the prosecution, the accused were armed with dangerous weapons and simply because some of the injured had sustained minor injuries, it cannot be concluded that they cannot be charged for such a grave crime. When once the Court frames a charge, it is not the duty of this Court to interfere in the framing of charges and the probative value of the statements to be analysed. Under the circumstance, the petitioners/ accused have to face the trial on the charges already framed. It is not the duty of this Court to look into the statement of each witness and find out whether the charge under Sec.308, I.P.C. can be framed or not. Only after satisfaction, the trial Court has framed the charges and under the circumstance, I am of the view that no interference is called for. 13. From the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.4186 of 1999 is also dismissed.