JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Court Tonk, whereby, the learned Judge has framed charges for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3(1)(10)(14) of SC/ST Act. 2. According to the petitioner-accused, who has appeared in person, he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case. According to him, he and one Shyam Sunder, Advocate, are having a series of litigation over a land belonging to a temple. In order to falsely implicate him in a criminal case, the entire case has been cooked up against him. The petitioner has contended that although, the police station is only half a kilometer away, yet there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. According to the complainant, the incident occurred at 11:00 AM, yet the FIR was not lodged till 7:30 PM. This inordinate delay has not been explained by the complainant. Moreover, there are contradiction between the statements of various eye-witnesses. According to Ram Karan and Tara Chand, the incident did not take place within the garden, but took place outside on a public street. Yet according to the others, the entire incident took place in the garden. Thirdly, Tara Chand, the person who is the most injured in the incident, happens to be the clerk of Shyam Sunder, Advocate. Therefore, he has falsely implicated the petitioner. Falsity of the case is also apparent from the fact that although Tara Chand claims that he has been assaulted, yet he has not filed a FIR against the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the falsity and truthfulness of the case cannot be adjudged at the time of framing of the charge. At such an initial stage, the trial Court is required only to sift through evidence in order to see if a strong prima facie case does exist against the petitioner or not. Both Ram Karan Bairwa and Tara Chand, the two injured persons, have clearly state that they were assaulted by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Since they are injured, their presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted. Moreover, their statements is corroborated by the medical evidence. The petitioner is unable to explain their injuries. Therefore, a strong prima facie case does exist against him. 4. Since they are injured, their presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted. Moreover, their statements is corroborated by the medical evidence. The petitioner is unable to explain their injuries. Therefore, a strong prima facie case does exist against him. 4. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the impugned order and examined the charge-sheet. 5. It is indeed a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is entitled to sift through the evidence in order to see if a suspicion arises against the accused persons or not. In the present case, Ram Karan Bairwa, the complainant claims that he was intercepted and assaulted by the accused persons including the present petitioner. Tara Chand, who rushed to rescue of Ram Karan Bairwa, was also assaulted by the present petitioner and by the other co-accused persons. Their statements have been further corroborated by the medical evidence. According to the medical evidence, while Ram Karan Bairwa has suffered two injuries, Tara Chand has suffered eight injuries. When the petitioner was asked to explain these injuries, his only defence is that Tara Chand's injury report was prepared belatedly. Since prima facie, the needle of the suspicion does point towards the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence, the trial Court was certainly justified in framing the charges against him. Thus, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. 6. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******