JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter has been heard finally at admission stage. 2. The aforesaid revision petition has been filed by petitioner against the order dated 25.5.2006, whereby learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 325/149 and 323 I.P.C. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no injury on the person of injured by any sharp edged weapon or dangerous to life. Hence no charge could be framed against the petitioners under Section 307/149 I.P.C. Learned trial Court has not applied its mind on the material available on record, hence the impugned order should be quashed. He placed reliance on Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2008 (6) SC 299 , wherein it was held that while framing the charge, under Section 227 of the Code, the Court must consider entire material available on record to form an opinion that evidence, if un-rebutted, would lead to a judgment of conviction. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Mohan Lal Rao v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (3) RCC 1102 , and Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2792 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and submitted that not only the injures, but how they were caused is also a relevant fact to assess the intention of the aggressors. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, and the judgments cited at bar, I find that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. clearly shows that the injured was surrounded by the accused-petitioners, who were armed with Dharias, Kulharis and Lathis. The medical report of injured Janak Singh shows that he received more than 22 injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor has rightly urged that not only the injuries, but the manner in which they caused is also to be considered to assess the intention of the accused. The medical report of injured Janak Singh shows that he received more than 22 injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor has rightly urged that not only the injuries, but the manner in which they caused is also to be considered to assess the intention of the accused. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that after considering the material available on record and the statements of witnesses, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to charge the petitioners with the offence under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. At this stage this Court is not to assess meticulously the material available before the trial Court and re-appreciate the evidence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 6. Consequently, the revision petition begin devoid of merit stands dismissed. 7. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.Petition dismissed. *******