JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants/accused have filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 25-5-2011 passed by 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framing the charge against each of them under sections 341, 307 in alternate 307/34, 323/34 and 294 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that Jittu @ Jitendra, Upsarpanch resident of Village Bargi had lodged a first information report at Police Station Bargi District Jabalpur contending that at the instance of the village Sarpanch Prema Bai some digging work of foundation to construct the additional room was started near the school of such village, on which he asked the husband of aforesaid Sarpanch namely Rambharos Gond that before starting such foundation work he should have also been informed so he could have present there on such occasion. In response of it Ram Bharos told him that he will explain in this regard later. On this issue Ram Bharos and Mole Gond came to his residence on the date of incident at about 1.00 O'clock in the noon, and called him out side, as soon as he came out, he was taken by them with beating by fists and kicks near some public tap of the village. Where Ram Bharos, Mole, Ramnath and Atthi by abusing him with filthy languages beaten him. In such beating blows of rod were given on .his head, thigh and left leg by Atthi. Ram Bharos gave him a blow of stick on his head while Ramnath and Mole initially thrown the stone and subsequently beaten him by fists and kicks, resultantly, he sustained various injuries with bleeding on different parts of his person, when Sevaram father of the victim came to rescue him then he was also beaten by Ram Bharos, resultantly he also sustained the injuries on the thumb of left hand and left leg. On the aforesaid information initially Crime No.381/10 was registered against the applicants for the offence of sections 341, 294, 324 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Complainant and his father Sevaram were sent to primary health center, Bargi where after carrying out medical examination their MLC reports were prepared and on completion of investigation by invoking the addition offence of section 307 of Indian Penal Code the applicants were charge-sheeted. Complainant and his father Sevaram were sent to primary health center, Bargi where after carrying out medical examination their MLC reports were prepared and on completion of investigation by invoking the addition offence of section 307 of Indian Penal Code the applicants were charge-sheeted. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of charge-sheet the above mentioned charges of sections 307/34 along with other charge were framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied from such order they have come to this court with this revision. 3. The applicants1 counsel after taking me through the papers of the charge-sheet placed on the record along with the order of framing the charge said that on taking into consideration the face value of the papers of the charge-sheet as accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not made out for framing the charge. According to his submission, this was not the case of more than section 323 of Indian Penal Code but for the reasons best known to the investigation agency they have been charge-sheeted for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code under the wrong premises. On evaluation of charge-sheet the Sessions Court has also committed error in framing the charge of section 307 and in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code. With these submissions, he prayed to discharge the applicants from the offence of section 307 and in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code with a appropriate direction to the trial Court to frame the proper charge in the matter by admitting and allowing this revision. 4. On the other hand Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned G. A. with the assistance of investigation officer present before the Court by justifying the impugned order framing the above mentioned charge against the applicants said that the same is inconsonance with the papers of the charge-sheet, showing the prima facie circumstances of such offence, does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In continuation she said that although out of the injuries sustained by the victim/ complainant Jittu no single injury could be said to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but looking to the number of injuries sustained by such victim and their consolidated effect, the same are sufficient to cause death of a person like victim Jittu in ordinary course of nature and in such premises also the impugned order does not require any interference and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view their argument, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge-sheet and the impugned order of framing the charge. . 6. It is apparent from the FIR that initially the case was registered against the applicants for the offence under sections 341, 294, 324 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to its averments nowhere complainant/ victim Jittu has stated that alleged incident was caused by any of the applicants with intention to cause his death. So firstly from the averments of FIR itself no inference could be drawn that alleged beating of the complainant Jittu was carried out by the applicants with intention to cause his death. 7. Subsequent to lodging the aforesaid report both victims were sent to the hospital where their separate MLC reports were prepared by the doctor. 8. According to MLC report of Jittu, he sustained the following injuries on his person: 1. L.W. 2 x ¼ X ¼ cm over left parietal region of scalp. 2. L.W. 3 x ¼ x ¼ cm over occipital region of scalp. 3. L.W. 4 x ¼ x ¼ cm over right side of occipital region of scalp. 4. L.W. 4 x ¼ x ¼ 4 cm over left side of parietal region of scalp. 5. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm behind Rt ear over occipital region of scalp. 6. L.W. 2 x l¼ x ¼ cm over frontal region of scalp. 7. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm over left temporal region of scalp. 8. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm over right temporal region of scalp two in number. 9. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm over left side of face in front of left ear. Bleeding present from all wounds. Injuries are caused by hard and blunt object within six hours. 8. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm over right temporal region of scalp two in number. 9. L.W. 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm over left side of face in front of left ear. Bleeding present from all wounds. Injuries are caused by hard and blunt object within six hours. Ref to RSO (surgery) for further management and opinion. 9. According to MLC report of Sevaram he sustained the following injuries on his person. 1. L.W. 3 x ¼ x ¼ cm over posterior aspect of right hand bleeding present. 2. Abrasion 2 x ½ cm over occipital region of scalp. 3. Tenderness present over backbone aspect. Injuries are caused by hard and blunt object within six hours. Ref to RSO (surgery) for further management and opinion. 10. On carrying out the x-ray of both the victims as directed by the doctor who prepared their initial MLC report, it is apparent from the x-ray report available in the record that no bony injury was found on any of the victims. Even on going through the case diary statements of the victims as well as other witnesses it could not be inferred that the alleged beating of the victim Jittu was carried out by the applicants or by any of them with intention to cause his death. 11. In view of the nature of the aforesaid injuries and the case diary statements of the witnesses, this Court has to answer the question whether the trial Court has rightly framed the charge of section 307 in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code besides the other charges or instead such charge some other charge had to be framed against the applicants ? 12. In view of above mentioned facts of the FIR as well as case diary statement no inference could be drawn that the alleged beating of any of the victims was carried out by the applicants with intention to cause their death. 13. Before proceeding further, I would like to mention here that besides the MLC report and X-ray report of Jittu, a report of department of surgery, Medical College, Jabalpur regarding Jittu is also placed on the record. In such report also no injury has been mentioned as sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the contrary the nature of alleged injuries sustained by Jittu/ victim were stated to be simple in nature in such report. In such report also no injury has been mentioned as sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the contrary the nature of alleged injuries sustained by Jittu/ victim were stated to be simple in nature in such report. Besides this, some C. T. Scan of Jittu was also directed but no such report is placed with the charge-sheet. 14. True it is that victim Jittu sustained the maximum injuries stated in the MLC report on different part of his head but all such injuries from number 1 to 9 are stated to be lacerated wound in the MLC as stated above. At the initial stage on preparing the MLC report of Jittu instead to give any opinion about nature of injuries patient was referred to RSO Surgery for further management and opinion and as per report of surgery department such injuries were found to be simple in nature. So mere on the whims of police/investigation agency, which is not based on any logical background, treated to be the case of section 307 or 307/34 of Indian Penal Code even for framing the charge. 15. It is trite law that to examine the availability of ingredients of offence of section 307 of Indian Penal Code, the court has to consider the matter taking into consideration the provision of first part of section 300 of Indian Penal Code, in which four material ingredients are stated. According to which if culpable homicide defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code, if falling under any category of them, then case could be treated to be the culpable homicide amounting to murder and if the person is not dead then such case be treated to be a case of attempt to murder. According to which if culpable homicide defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code, if falling under any category of them, then case could be treated to be the culpable homicide amounting to murder and if the person is not dead then such case be treated to be a case of attempt to murder. Those four ingredients are; (a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, (b) if it is done with intention of causing bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, (c) if it is done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, (d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury stated in aforesaid other ingredients. 16. The aforesaid provision of section 300 of Indian Penal Code is also applicable to consider the scope of section 307 of Indian Penal Code keeping in view of aforesaid ingredients of section 300 of Indian Penal Code on examining the case at hand then in the available factual scenario, the impugned case is not falling under any of the aforesaid four ingredients stated in the earlier part of section 300 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore the impugned case could not be treated to be the case of section 307 of Indian Penal Code and in such premises the impugned order till the extent of framing the charge of section 307 in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable, hence the same is hereby set aside. 17. After setting aside the charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the victims this Court has to decide that the charge of which offence at the place of section 307 or 307/34 of Indian Penal Code should be framed against the applicants. 17. After setting aside the charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the victims this Court has to decide that the charge of which offence at the place of section 307 or 307/34 of Indian Penal Code should be framed against the applicants. The victims namely Jittu and Sevaram as per their MLC reports and other medical papers sustained the alleged injuries by means of hard and blunt object and not by hard and sharp object. Beside this, the injuries of Jittu are stated to be lacerated wounds and described the same simple in nature. As per MLC report of Sevaram he sustained one lacerated wound, one abrasion and one tenderness. The same are stated to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. In such premises, it is apparent that no victim has sustained any of the injury of hard and sharp object. Even otherwise from the FIR it is apparent that any of the applicants was not having any hard and sharp weapon in their hands at the time of the incident. The complainant has made the allegation about rod and stick the hard and blunt object and also of beating by fists and kicks. In such premises, I am of the considered view that the impugned case is not falling under section 324 of Indian Penal Code also. Thus in such circumstances, the charge of section 323 of Indian Penal Code along with the charge of sections 341, 294 of Indian Penal Code should be framed against the applicants. As alleged the incident was committed by the applicants in furtherance of their common intention with two victims, therefore, such charge of section 323 of Indian Penal Code should be framed with section 34 of Indian Penal Code for two times against each of the applicants. 18. As alleged the incident was committed by the applicants in furtherance of their common intention with two victims, therefore, such charge of section 323 of Indian Penal Code should be framed with section 34 of Indian Penal Code for two times against each of the applicants. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion by affirming the charge of sections 341, 294 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code by allowing this revision in part the charge of section 307 in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to frame the additional charge of section 323 in alternate 323/34 of Indian Penal Code at the place of section 307 in alternate 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and proceed with the matter in accordance with the procedure provided for holding the trial of such sections. Till this extent the impugned order is modified while the remaining findings are hereby affirmed. 19. The revision is allowed as indicated above.