Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, accused-petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) by which the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 325/34 and 307, IPC. 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of the instant criminal revision petition, are that on 20.02.2004, injured-respondent No. 2 Prem Singh lodged an FIR with Police Station, Khamnor alleging inter alia that in the morning, at about 7:00 am, he reached near his field, all the three petitioners came there. Accused-petitioners Khem Singh and Smt. Shanta were having Sariya in their hand while accused-petitioner Virbhan Singh was having a Lathi. The petitioners forbade complainant-respondent No. 2 to cut the branches of trees from that place, on which the complainant, out of fear, tried to go away but the petitioners encircled him and with an intention to kill him, they started beating him. The complainant-respondent started shouting, on which his son Rajesh Singh and father Laxman Singh came there, who too were given beatings by the petitioners. It was further stated that the complainant-respondent became unconscious and his father and brother suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioners. It was stated that Manohar Singh and Tej Singh came there and took him in a jeep to the hospital. After investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court, vide impugned order, framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 325/34 and 307, IPC. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order only to the extent of framing the charge under Section 307, IPC. His contention is that the incident took place on 20.02.2004 and as per the injury report dated 20.02.2004, injured-respondent Prem Singh suffered six injuries, all simple in nature. However, injured-respondent Prem Singh was again medically examined on 12.05.2004 and on the basis of second injury report, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 307, IPC. His contention is that the incident took place on 20.02.2004 and as per the injury report dated 20.02.2004, injured-respondent Prem Singh suffered six injuries, all simple in nature. However, injured-respondent Prem Singh was again medically examined on 12.05.2004 and on the basis of second injury report, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 307, IPC. His further contention is that in the second injury report prepared after 80 days, injuries No. 1 and 2 i.e., left leg and left forearm are said to be grievous in nature by blunt object and, therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioners caused injuries to Prem Singh with the intention and such knowledge that by their act if death is caused, they would be guilty of murder. Thus, the charge framed under Section 307, IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order and the relevant documents placed on record. .5. There is no dispute that the incident took place on 20.02.2004. Injured-respondent Prem Singh was medically examined on 20.02.2004 itself and as per the first injury report dated 20.02.2004, he suffered the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 3 x 1 x ½ cm on left temporal region of scalp, simple in nature and caused by sharp-edged. 2. Incised would 3 x 1 x ½ cm on left side of forehead, simple in nature caused by sharp-edged weapon. 3. Incised wound 3 x 1 x ½ cm on right elbow, simple in nature and caused by sharp-edged weapon. 4. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on left infra-scapular region, simple in nature and caused by blunt object. 5. Incised wound 3 x 1 x ½ cm on upper 1/3 extending from surface to forearm, simple in nature and caused by sharp-edged weapon. 6. Complaining pain on whole of the waist, caused by blunt object; however the opinion regarding this injury was kept reserved. As per the report of Radiologist, no bony injury was seen. 6. Thus, asper theinjuryreport preparedon 20.02.2004, noneof theinjuriessuffered byinjured-respondentPrem Singh was found grievous in nature or dangerous to life. .7. Thereafter, injured-respondent Prem Singh was again medically examined after 80 days of the incident on 12.05.2005 after removal of Plaster of Paris from left upper limb and left lower limb. 6. Thus, asper theinjuryreport preparedon 20.02.2004, noneof theinjuriessuffered byinjured-respondentPrem Singh was found grievous in nature or dangerous to life. .7. Thereafter, injured-respondent Prem Singh was again medically examined after 80 days of the incident on 12.05.2005 after removal of Plaster of Paris from left upper limb and left lower limb. As per the second medical examination, the injured suffered the following injuries:- 1. Tenderness present on deep pressure over left leg, 5 x 3 cm. 2. Tendernesspresent on deep pressure over upper and middle 1/3 juncture of left forearm, 5 x 5 cm. .8. Both these injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt object, however, on being examined by the Radiologist, on the basis of X-ray plates, the following opinion was given:- .(1) X-ray of left leg shows commuted fracture of tiba left with partial callous. .(2) X-ray of left forearm shows fracture of ulna, some partial callous. 9. Both these injuries were found to have been caused by blunt object whereas in the first injury report dated 20.02.2004, there was no leg injury as also injuries on forearm were said to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. 10. There is no evidence on record to suggest how the injured-respondent was put to second medical examination. As per the first injury report dated 20.02.2004, the injured suffered six injuries and as per the report of the Radiologist dated 20.02.2004, no bony injury was seen. The second injury report was prepared on 12.05.2004, i.e., after eighty days of the incident, wherein injury on leg and nature of weapon used do not tally with the earlier injury report. Thus, it cannot be said that the injuries and fractures noticed during second medical examination conducted on 12.05.2004 are co-related to the incident which took place way back on 20.02.2004. The second injury report and the M.L.C. Report are not free from doubt and prima facie do not establish that these reports pertain to the injuries which injured-respondent Prem Singh suffered in the incident which took place on 20.02.2004. More so, there is no evidence that the alleged injuries were caused by the petitioners with the intention and such knowledge and under such circumstances that if death is caused by their act then they would be guilty of murder. 11. More so, there is no evidence that the alleged injuries were caused by the petitioners with the intention and such knowledge and under such circumstances that if death is caused by their act then they would be guilty of murder. 11. In this view of the matter, the charge under Section 307, IPC framed by the learned trial Court against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the impugned order, to the extent of framing charge under Section 307, IPC, is liable to be set aside. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order, to the extent of framing charge under Section 307, IPC against the petitioners, is hereby set-aside. The stay application stands disposed of