Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The accused petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 341, 307, 325, 323, IPC and in alternative 307/149, 323/149 and 325/149, IPC. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on a Parcha Bayan of Shri Ashok Kumar a formal FIR No. 236/2004 was registered at P.S. Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. In his Parcha Bayan, the complainant claimed that he was assaulted by the accused by Lathi and Sariya. He further claimed that he sustained injuries on his forehead, left arm, both his hands and also sustained fractures of both the legs. According to him it it were not for Rajesh S/o Kailash and Yogesh Kumar Sahgal who rescued him, the accused petitioners would have assaulted him even more. The said FIR was registered under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 307, IPC. After a thorough investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the police for offences mentioned in the first para. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.06.2005, the learned Judge was pleased to frame the charge as aforementioned. Hence this petition before us. 3. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that according to the injury report of the complainant he has suffered only bruises on the forehead and there are on other injuries on any other vital parts of the body. Although the complainant has sustained fractures on both the legs, such injury is not fatal to the complainant. Therefore, none of the injuries either cumulatively or separately are sufficient in the ordinary nature to cause the death of the complainant. Hence according to the learned Counsel the basic ingredients of Section 307 are conspicuously missing. Thus, the charge framed for offence under Section 307 is legally unsustainable. In order to buttress his contention the learned Counsel has relied on the case of Ajay Kumar & Ors. vs. State, 2003 (1) CrLR 211 (Raj). 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the leaned Counsels and have perused the injury report of the complainant and have examined the impugned order. 6. Framing of charge is a serious function bestowed upon the trial Court. vs. State, 2003 (1) CrLR 211 (Raj). 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the leaned Counsels and have perused the injury report of the complainant and have examined the impugned order. 6. Framing of charge is a serious function bestowed upon the trial Court. The learned Judge while framing the charge has to examine that the ingredients of the offence are present in the evidence collected by the investigating agency. Admittedly, there are only bruises on the forehead sustained by the complainant. There are no other injuries on any other vital parts of the body. The fracture of the legs cannot possibly lead to the death of the complainant in the ordinary course of nature. Hence the essential ingredients of Section 307 are conspicuously missing from the case. The present case is also covered by the decision rendered in Ajay Kumars case (Supra). In that case the injured was assaulted by blows and lathis and suffered a fracture of the fifth metacarpal bone. This Honble Court held that the ingredients of Section 307 would not met out, therefore, the charge for the offence under Section 307 is unsustainable. Likewise, in the present case, no prima facie case is made out for offence under Section 307, IPC, therefore, the petitioners are discharged from the said offence. However, the rest of the charges framed by the learned trial Judge are confirmed. 7. With these observations this petition is partly allowed.