JUDGMENT Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners, assailing the order dated 5.6.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in case No.16-S/7 of 2012, titled as State of H.P. versus Rakesh Negi and others. In terms of the impugned order, petitioners are charged for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to face trial. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with care. It is correct that the court is not to act as a mouth piece or post office of the prosecution at the time of consideration of charges. It must sift evidence to find out, broadly whether commission of offence exclusively triable by court of Sessions, is made out or not. At this stage, the court has no material other than the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. to analyse and appreciate. The statements of the complainant Sh. Rajinder Thakur, recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C. and of Gopal Dass, Rishi Kumar, Mahinder Singh, Babu Ram, Mahinder Singh son of Tula Ram, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. show that complainant party was plying their vehicles at old ISBT Taxi Stand Shimla. Whereas the accused party, was running their taxis at new ISBT Tuti Kandi. There was some dispute between the two factions. As per statements of the witnesses on 4.9.2011 at about 4 P.M., the accused and their other companions came to old ISBT Shimla boarding in 4-5 vehicles. They were armed with swords and sticks whereas Rakesh Negi was having a pistol. They immediately made an attack on the complainant party. Mahinder Singh was thrown from the terrace 20 feet down on the Railway track. The accused prima facie committed this act with such intention and such circumstances that had death been caused, they would have been guilty of offence of murder. The nature of the injuries ultimately received by the injured is not relevant at least at this stage. The accused also executed threats to kill the complainant party. The material on record prima facie discloses commission of offences punishable u/S 148 and 307, 506 read with Section 149 I.P.CV., charges are framed and put to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.” 2. The accused also executed threats to kill the complainant party. The material on record prima facie discloses commission of offences punishable u/S 148 and 307, 506 read with Section 149 I.P.CV., charges are framed and put to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.” 2. On 4.9.2011, FIR No.190/11, under Sections 147,148,149,307,506 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, on the basis of complaint filed by Shri Rajinder Thakur, who he is the President of the Taxi Union. On 4.9.2011 at about 4 p.m., petitioners/accused armed with weapons, such as pistol, sword and dandas, came to the Taxi Stand at Shimla, and suddenly attacked and assaulted the persons sitting there and as a result of the same S/Shri Mahinder Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram sustained injuries. Also, Shri Mahinder Singh was thrown one level below the Taxi Stand on the Railway line. The assailants assaulted the injured with an intent to cause death. 3. Police investigated the matter. Injured were got medically examined at Government Hospital. MLCs do reveal that S/Shri Mahidner Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram received multiple injuries, which are simple in nature. Challan was presented in the Court for trial and in terms of the impugned order, petitioners stand charged of the offences mentioned herein earlier. 4. It is urged by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the accused that the Court below has erred in framing the charge for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as no recovery of either sword or pistol was made by the police during the course of investigation. Further, it is urged that injuries received by the injured S/Shri Mahinder Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram are simple in nature and as such it cannot be said that the accused had any intention of causing any death. Further, my specific attention is invited to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to urge that they are not corroborated by any contemporariness material, i.e. medical evidence placed on record by the police. The correctness and veracity of such statements has to be tested and appreciated at the time of framing of charge. The correctness and veracity of such statements has to be tested and appreciated at the time of framing of charge. It is also urged that the Court below simply got swayed by the contents of the said statements and thus erroneously framed the charge for an offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code., which has seriously prejudiced the accused inasmuch as they are forced to face a Sessions trial. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General, has invited my attention to the contents of the record produced before this Court. 6. I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. 7. Significantly, it is not the petitioners’ grievance that the police has not carried out the investigation in a fair manner. No allegations of bias or malice have been levelled against any one of the police officials. 8. No doubt, medical evidence reveals that the nature of injuries sustained by S/Shri Mahinder Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram are simple in nature, but undoubtedly they received multiple injuries on various and vital parts of their bodies. It is also true that no pistol or sword, as alleged by the complainant, was recovered by the police during the course of investigation but then one cannot lose sight of the fact that another weapon of offence, i.e. danda was actually recovered. 9. Injuries sustained by the injured are on vital parts of the body, including skull. At this stage, one would refrain from going into the question as to whether such injuries could have been fatal or not as this mater is to be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence so led and produced by the prosecution but prima facie it cannot be said that petitioners had no intent of causing murder. Noticeably, bones of certain parts of the bodies of the injured were also found to have been fractured in the incident. 10. Court below, in my considered view, has taken a prima facie view of the matter and it cannot be said that it got swayed by the statements recorded by the police, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. At the stage of framing of charge, Court has to consider the material in totality. 10. Court below, in my considered view, has taken a prima facie view of the matter and it cannot be said that it got swayed by the statements recorded by the police, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. At the stage of framing of charge, Court has to consider the material in totality. In the instant case, the Court below, in my considered view, was equipped with some material to prima facie show that the accused-petitioners are guilty of the charged offences. At this stage, trial Court is not required to go into the merits of the matter, as the nature of the injuries received by the injured, which are simple in nature, alone cannot be a determining factor for framing the charge. There can be a case where despite murderous assault, no injury is actually sustained by the complainant, but then this circumstance alone cannot be a ground for not framing the charge as is so required under law and put the accused to trial. 12. At the time of framing of charge, Court is not required to minutely examine the evidence or apply the standard as to whether prosecution would ultimately be able to prove/establish its case against the accused during trial. The purpose of framing of charge is to tell an accused, precisely and concisely, the matter with which he is charged. It must be conveyed to him with sufficient clarity and certainty what prosecution intends to establish during trial. Whether petitioners assaulted the injured, while armed with pistol, danda or sword, is a question which needs to be examined during trial. Simply because there is no recovery of the said weapons cannot be a ground to discharge the accused-petitioners. 13. In my considered view, in the instant case, the Court has rightly taken a prima facie view of the matter, while framing the charge for an offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention that on account of the same, case of the accused persons stands prejudiced, is not only misconceived but also untenable in law. Trial is a trial, regardless of the fact where the accused is tried. The alleged crime is of a heinous nature. The ultimate object of trial is to ensure that justice is done. The contention that on account of the same, case of the accused persons stands prejudiced, is not only misconceived but also untenable in law. Trial is a trial, regardless of the fact where the accused is tried. The alleged crime is of a heinous nature. The ultimate object of trial is to ensure that justice is done. In my considered view, at this stage, it cannot be said that the conclusion with regard to the framing of charge for offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is unreasonable, unjustifiable, illegal or warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the petition stands dismissed and disposed of, without any costs.