JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging order dated 16.02.2009 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Sessions Case No.21/2008 (38/2008), whereby, the trial Court framed charges against the accused petitioners under Section 307, read with Section 149, I.P.C. 2. In this revision petition, the main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out but the learned trial Court grossly erred in framing charge for offence under Section 307, read with Section 149, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that nature of injuries were to be taken into consideration for the purpose of framing the charge but the learned trial Court completely ignored the nature of injuries received by Deva Ram s/o Bhagwana Ram, Kishna Ram s/o Virdha Ram, which were on non-vital parts of the body and all the injuries received by the above two persons are on legs and hands and caused by blunt weapon. Further, as per the doctors, it cannot be said that these injuries were dangerous to life in any manner, therefore, it is prayed that order of framing charge may be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2008 (1) RJT 386 . 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant submit that in the revision petition the petitioners intelligently did not disclose the fact that in all five persons received injuries and while referring only to the injuries of Deva Ram and Kishna Ram obtained stay from this Court upon the further proceedings. It is also pointed out that in all five persons were injured in the incident, viz., Deva Ram, Kishna Ram, Goga Ram, Sanwata Ram and Smt. Soni Devi and, as per the injury report Kishna Ram received 5 injuries, Deva Ram received 4 injuries, Goga Ram received 4 injuries out of which one injury was upon the right parietal region of his head and Sanwata Ram and Smt. Soni received 5 injuries each. It is further submitted that Deva Ram and Kishna Ram also received injuries of fracture, therefore, for the purpose of framing charge only injuries are not to be taken into consideration but other facts are also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of framing charge. 5. Both learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant invited my attention towards various judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 Cr LR (SC) 342, Om Wati (Smt.) & Another v. State, through Delhi Administration & Others ; 1983 Cr LR (SC) 151, State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil & Others ; 1995 Cr LR (Raj.) 547, Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ; 2000 Cr LR (Raj.) 390, Keshar Singh & Another v. State of Rajasthan ; and, 2002 (1) Cr LR (Raj.) 207, Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Others . It is submitted that as per above judgments, only the medical evidence, parcha-bayan and statements of the injured recorded during investigation were considered and it is obvious that right from the initial stage there was intention to kill the injured, therefore, since the petitioners entered in the residential premises of the complainant party and assaulted them and as a consequence injuries were received which were serious in nature including fractures, therefore, learned trial Court did not commit any wrong while framing charge under Section 307, I.P.C., in the alternative Section 307/149, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case including the statements of the injured more specifically statement of Virdha Ram, I am satisfied that there was intention to commit murder, therefore, judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present facts of the case. After going through the various judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court, I am in full agreement with the submission of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that at the stage of framing charge not only injuries are to be taken into consideration but other facts are also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of framing charge. It is not necessary that injured persons must have received grievous injuries on vital parts of the body for framing charge under Section 307, I.P.C. but, at the stage of framing charge, medical evidence and other evidence may also be required to be considered at the time of framing charge. In this case, there is sufficient evidence on record for the purpose of framing charge under Section 307, I.P.C., in the alternative Section 307/149, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******