JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397/401 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar (for short `the trial Court' hereinafter), by which the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences u/s. 307 in alternative u/s. 307 r/w Section 34, 341, 323, 325, in alternative u/ss. 341, 323, 325 r/w Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order framing charge for the offence u/s. 307 in alternative Section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant. I have carefully gone through the order impugned dated 28.9.2004 and the challan papers. 3. In the first Information Report, injured Ram Swaroop alleged that petitioner-Indraj @ Raju inflicted 20-25 lathi blows and co-accused-Birbalram was standing having lathi in hand saying that kill him. Injured Ram Swaroop was medically examined soon after the occurrence. He suffered following injuries : 1. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/4' below Rt. knee blunt 2. Defuse Swelling Lt. Leg blunt 3. Contusion 3 x 1' Rt. Forearm blunt 4. On being examined by the Radiologist, all the three injuries were found to be grievous in nature caused by blunt object i.e. lathi. From the perusal of the injury report as also report of the Radiologist, it appears that the injured complainant has suffered injuries on both legs below knee and forearm. None of the injuries are on the vital parts. On the contrary, the injuries are on the forearm and leg below knee. From the nature of injuries caused, it cannot be even prima facie inferred at this stage that the assailant intended to commit murder of injured complainant-Ram Swaroop. More so, the complainant has given exaggerated version in the FIR that the petitioner No. 2 caused 20-25 injuries by lathi and thereafter he made an attempt to cause injury on the skull which resulted in injury on forearm. At the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see prima facie whether three is evidence to presume that the accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC. The very essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC are lacking in the instant case. However, so far as the offence punishable u/ss. At the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see prima facie whether three is evidence to presume that the accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC. The very essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC are lacking in the instant case. However, so far as the offence punishable u/ss. 341, 323 & 325 IPC are concerned, there is ample evidence against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the order framing charge u/s. 307 IPC in alternative 307/34 IPC cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and order framing charge against the petitioner to the extent framing of charge u/s. 307 IPC in the alternative 307/34 IPC is hereby set aside. The charge framed for other offences calls for no interference and is maintained. The stay application stands disposed of.Revision petition partly allowed. *******