Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Gulshan Kumar, his brother Vijay Kumar and son Raj Kumar have filed this revision to challenge the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated February 20, 2004 whereby the learned trial Judge found that a prima facie case punishable under Sections 308, 323 read with 34 IPC was made out against the accused and they were charge-sheeted accordingly. The petitioners have challenged the framing of charge under Section 308 IPC. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge weighed the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the point and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 308/323 read with 34 I.P.C. was made out against the accused. 3. The petition challenging the charge was admitted and proceedings were stayed on April 2, 2004 on the basis of judgment of this Court in Gurmit Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 535 (P&H). 4. The petitioners had assaulted Rishi Parkash and must necessarily face trial but to go into the exact nature of the offence at this stage would require appraisal of the medical evidence because without discussing the medical evidence, it would not be possible for the Court to consider the exact nature of the offence. Mostly hurt cases are clear and uncomplicated but the present is a case where the clear nature of the injuries and the offence committed can only be known after the evidence has been recorded and the Medical Officers cross-examined. 5. Charge has been framed on a prima facie finding that the petitioners had inflicted some injuries on the complainant. 6. In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and another, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 314 (SC) the opinion of the Supreme Court is under :- "We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charges, the principles to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. In a case praying for quashing of the charges, the principles to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. By relying upon the decisions of the apex court most of which were with reference to appeals arising out of convictions, we think of the High Court was not justified in this case in giving a findings as to the non-existence of material to frame a charge for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C., therefore, so far as the finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought not to have been given at this stage. At the same time we are also in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that even the Sessions Court ought not to have expressed this views in such certain terms which indicates that the Sessions Court had taken a final decision in regard to the material to establish a charge punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC." 7. In the present case charges have been framed. The trial must commence. If the accused are found innocent, they shall be acquitted. If the accused are found guilty of the charges, they shall be convicted. If the trial Court finds the accused guilty to some lesser offences, they shall be convicted under the lesser offences. However, the verdict in this case would depend on the evidence recorded at the trial. Therefore, the trial may be seriously prejudiced if a view is expressed by this Court regarding the nature of the offence prima facie committed by the accused. 8. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.