JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved with the order dated 05.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, Dausa, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges for offences under Sections 307 and 397 IPC, and for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the accused petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.2009, the complainant lodged a FIR, at Police Station Bandikui. In the FIR, he alleged that while he was standing beside a road, a motorcycle stopped near him, and one person tried to snatch his mobile phone and another person snatched the purse from the pocket. In the FIR, it was further alleged that while the complaint chased them, the accused persons fired from Katta. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed. On the basis of the charge sheet, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui framed charges as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the Injury Report of Suresh, he has suffered a simple injury by a blunt weapon. The said injury is an abrasion. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Moreover, no deadly weapon was used for committing robbery or dacoity. Therefore, offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out. Lastly, merely from the recovery of a live cartridge, the offence under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act is not made out. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor has vehemently contended that according to Suresh, while the petitioner and the other co-accused were trying to escape from the scene of crime, the petitioner had fired at the complainant with a "Katta" (a country made pistol). The bullet from the accused had hit the car in which the complainant was trying to chase the accused petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The memo of recovery of car also shows that it was damaged by firearm. Thus, clearly the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Moreover, as a firearm was used in the same transaction while trying to commit robbery, the offence under Section 397 IPC, is clearly made out. Lastly, since a live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner for which he had no valid licence, therefore, offence under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, is clearly made out. 5. Moreover, as a firearm was used in the same transaction while trying to commit robbery, the offence under Section 397 IPC, is clearly made out. Lastly, since a live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner for which he had no valid licence, therefore, offence under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, is clearly made out. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned order, and also perused the charge-sheet submitted before this Court. 6. According to the complainant, while the petitioner and other co-accused persons were trying to escape from the scene of crime, the petitioner had fired at the complainant with a "Katta". The pellets from the "Katta" had hit the car. This is also obvious from the recovery memo of the car. According to Illustration (a) of Section 307, "A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstance that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section". Therefore, prima facie, the present case falls under Illustration (a) of Section 307 IPC. Thus, obviously a strong suspicion does exist, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, that offence under Section 307 IPC has been committed by the petitioner. 7. As far as offence under Section 397 IPC is concerned, it deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. According to the complainant, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had committed robbery and while trying to escape from the scene of crime, they had fired at the complainant. Therefore, the firing at the complainant is a a part of the complete transaction, from the point of robbery to the point of escape, from the scene of crime. Therefore, the offence under Section 397 IPC is made out. 8. According to Section 3 of Arms Act, if a person, has any ammunition without a licence and he is trying to contravene Section 3 of the Act; the contravention of Section 3 entails a punishment under Section 25 of the Act. The petitioner was found with live cartridge, an ammunition without a licence. Thus, a strong suspicion does exist that he has committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 25 of the Act. 9. The petitioner was found with live cartridge, an ammunition without a licence. Thus, a strong suspicion does exist that he has committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 25 of the Act. 9. Lastly, it is, indeed, trite to state that at the time of framing of the charges, the learned Judge is concerned only with the existence of strong prima facie case. If there is sufficient evidence to show the existence of grave suspicion that the accused may have committed the offence, the learned Court would be justified in framing the charges. In the present case, this Court finds sufficient grave suspicion that the petitioner may have committed the offence, therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing the charges. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. 10. However, by way of abandoned caution, it is amply made clear that any of the observations made by this Court, mentioned above, would not influence the course of trial. The trial Judge is expected to appreciate the evidence presented both by the prosecution and by the defence and to pronounce its judgment objectively assessing the evidence strictly in accordance with law.Petition Dismissed. *******