JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 27.1.2010, the learned trial Court on application filed by the complainant, namely, Dadu Ram @ Satram under Section 216, Cr.P.C. has added charge under Section 326/149 I.P.C. against the present accused-petitioners. 3. The accused-petitioners are under trial before the learned trial Court for the alleged offences under Sections 148, 307/149, 324, 325/149, 323/149 and 452 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the PW-5 Dr. Mahesh Panwar in his statements recorded by the learned trial Court on 23.6.2008 had clearly opined that injury No. 1 incised wound of 5 x 3 cm x 3 cm above middle of left iliaccrest was injury of simple nature along-with injuries No. 4 but the same was caused by a sharp weapon. At the same time, the PW-17 Dr. Chetan Sharma examined by the learned trial Court on 19.6.2009 who operated the injured Duda Ram @ Satram, aged 35 on 19.9.2006, also stated in his cross-examination that what weapon was used for causing such injury could be stated only by a medical jurist and since he was not a medical jurist, therefore, no opinion was expressed by him in this regard. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, therefore, submitted that since the petitioners were already under trial for more serious offence viz. 307/149, I.P.C., therefore, learned trial Court was not justified in allowing the application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. and adding charge under Section 326/149 of I.P.C. as well by the impugned order dated 27.1.2010. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. B.B. Singh, for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor submitted that under Section 216, Cr.P.C., learned trial Court can add or amend the charge at any point of time before the judgment is pronounced; and since on the basis of statements recorded of the doctors, the incised wound of 5 x 3 x 3 cm above the middle of left iliac-crest was found to be caused by a sharp weapon and was also dangerous to life for the injured-complainant, therefore, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in adding the charge under Section 326/149 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that in pursuance of the summons issued by the learned trial Court by the impugned order for re-examining the PW-5 Dr. Mahesh Panwar and PW-2 complainant Duda Ram @ Satram @ Ram Niwas, both these witnesses have already been examined on the given date i.e. on 19.2.2010. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned order dated 27.1.2010, this Court is satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned order of the learned trial court adding the charge under Section 326/149 I.P.C. qua the accused-petitioners who caused injury No. 1 (incised wound of 5 x 3 x 3 cm above the middle of left iliecrest), which is dangerous to life as stated by the PW-5 Dr. Mahesh Panwar as well as PW-17 Dr. Chetan Sharma. Consequently, the offence under Section 326/149 I.P.C. is prima facie made out and the impugned order cannot be validly assailed. This criminal revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners is found to be devoid of merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. A copy of this order along with record of the case may be sent back to learned trial Court immediately.Revision dismissed. *******