S.C. Agarwal, J.- This criminal re­vision is directed against the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2003 whereby the application 313-kha filed on behalf of the revisionist Abzal Ahmad for modification/ alteration of charge was rejected. Heard learned Counsel for the revision­ist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Affidavit filed by learned Counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submit­ted that charge under section 308 I.P.C. was framed by the Trial Court on the ground that accused persons caused injuries to Matloob, Shabnam and the deceased Abdul Waheed. It was contended that Abdul Waheed died as a result of injuries sustained by him in this incident and, therefore, charge under section 304/149 I.P.C. was framed against all the accused and separate charge under section 308/149 I.P.C. could not be framed in respect of the injuries caused to Abdul Waheed. It was further contended that Matloob was not medically examined and did not sustain any injury. Shabnam sustained one lacerated wound on right frontal region 3.5 cm. x 0.6 cm., 1 cm. above the eyebrow. It was contended that no x-ray report or supplementary re­port was filed to show that injury sustained by Shabnam was grievous or dangerous to life or could cause death. The pith and substance of the submission is that charge under section 308 I.P.C. could not have been framed against the revisionist and the co-accused, and the charge under section 308 I.P.C. should have been amended ac­cordingly. Learned A.G.A. supported the im­pugned order. The application for modification of charge was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the accused persons caused injuries to deceased Abdul Waheed and the remaining two injured by bricks, stones, lathis and dandas with such knowledge or intention that death could have been caused by such an act. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the point raised by the accused and has not considered the evidence available on record in proper per­spective. Reference to injuries sustained by de­ceased Abdul Waheed is irrelevant for framing charge under section 308/149 I.P.C., as charge under section 304/149 I.P.C. has already been framed on account of death of Abdul Waheed. Reference to injuries sustained by de­ceased Abdul Waheed is irrelevant for framing charge under section 308/149 I.P.C., as charge under section 304/149 I.P.C. has already been framed on account of death of Abdul Waheed. As regards in­juries to Matloob are concerned, who was examined as P.W.3, he has clearly stated that his injuries were simple and, therefore, he did not get himself medically examined. Thus, injuries to Matloob are also not suf­ficient to bring the case under section 308 I.P.C. The injury sustained by Shabnam was also simple. In this view of the matter, the order passed by learned Addition, Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the submissions made by learned Counsel for the accused, and the medical evidence available on record. The impugned order is liable to be set-aside, 3. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.7.2010 is set-aside. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the application 313-kha for modification of charge under section 308 I.P.C. afresh after properly considering the medical evidence. It need not be emphasized that since the charge under section 304/149 I.P.C. has been fired against the accused persons in respect of the death of Abdul Waheed, the same cannot be the ground to frame charge under section 308/149 I.P.C. in respect of the injuries of Abdul Wsheed. Revision Allowed.