JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against Dungar Ram for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC, and also framed the charges against Ram Niwas and Baldev Ram for offences under Sections 302/34, 353 IPC and for offence under Section 150 of the Electricity Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Amra Ram who was an under-trainee of the Electricity Department lodged a report at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, wherein he claimed that in the night of 29.12.2007, he and Rupa Ram, Helper, were going on a motorcycle to village Kaliyas Ki Sarhad. They went to the tube well of Sohan Ram as they had information that theft of electricity was being committed. According to him, they met Sohan Ram, Baldev Ram, Ram Niwas and five to seven other persons. They were attacked by them. While the complainant escaped from the said place, Sohan Ram started his tractor and ran the tractor over Rupa Ram. Subsequently, these persons took the body of Rupa Ram and gave him electric shock. On this report, the police registered a FIR, FIR No.91/2007, for offences under Sections 302, 332, 353, 201 IPC and under Sections 135 and 136 of the Electricity Act. After a thorough investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Sohan Ram for offences under Sections 302, 332, 353, 201 IPC and under Sections 135 and 136 of Electricity Act, against Dungar Ram, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and for offence under Sections 135 and 150 of the Electricity Act, against Ram Niwas and Baldev Ram, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences under Sections 135 and 150 of the Electricity Act. Vide order dated 15.07.2008, the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners as aforementioned. Hence, these petitions before this court.The Mr. J.R. Chawel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Dungar Ram, has vehemently contended that there is no clear cut evidence that Dungar Ram was even present at the time when Sohan Ram allegedly caused the death of Rupa Ram. Moreover, according to the police, Dungar Ram had helped Sohan Ram in hiding his tractor. However, there is no evidence with regard to this fact. Moreover, according to the police, Dungar Ram had helped Sohan Ram in hiding his tractor. However, there is no evidence with regard to this fact. Moreover, the tractor has been recovered from the possession of Sohan Ram. Therefore, as far as Dungar Ram is concerned, he has no connection with the alleged offence. 3. Similar contentions have been echoed by Mr. A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for Ram Niwas and Baldev Ram. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, the learned counsel for the complainant, and Mr. Panney Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor, have vehemently contended that according to the statement of Hukma Ram, Dungar Ram is Sohan Ram's helper in his agricultural activities. According to the Hukmaram, he had brought Amra Ram and Rupa Ram to Sohan Rams farm. However, while he was returning back to his own farm, he met Sohan Ram, Dungar Ram, Baldev Ram, and Ram Niwas. According to him, both before the incident and after the incident, Dungar Ram was with Sohan Ram. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, sufficient evidence does exist to point towards the involvement of Dungar Ram in the alleged killing of Rupa Ram. Similarly the statement of Hukma Ram also points the needle of suspicion towards Baldev Ram and Ram Niwas. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, at the time of framing of the charges, the trial court cannot meticulously examine the evidence. At the initial stage of framing of the charges, the trial court has to merely see whether strong prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. In case, it does exist, the learned trial court has no other option but to frame the charges. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the record. 6. A bare perusal of the statement of Hukma Ram clearly reveals that the statement of Hukama Ram may not be very categorical on the point whether Dungar Ram was present at the time of the incident or not. But nonetheless according to him, prior to the occurrence, Dungar Ram was with Sohan Ram. Even subsequently Dungar Ram had accompanied Sohan Ram. Hukma Ram also informed the police that Dungar Ram happens to be a helper of Sohan Ram in his agricultural activities. He further states that Dungar Ram "went to his farm". But nonetheless according to him, prior to the occurrence, Dungar Ram was with Sohan Ram. Even subsequently Dungar Ram had accompanied Sohan Ram. Hukma Ram also informed the police that Dungar Ram happens to be a helper of Sohan Ram in his agricultural activities. He further states that Dungar Ram "went to his farm". The statement that "he went to his farm" would imply that he went to farm of Sohan Ram, as Dungar Ram does not seem to have an independent farm of his own. However, this is an issue which needs to be clarified during the trial. 7. Furthermore, according to statement of Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the police that he had helped Sohan Ram in hiding the tractor, prima faice, is supported by the statement of Hukma Ram. 8. Similarly, the statement of Hukma Ram does point a needle of suspicion towards the involvement of Baldew Ram and Ram Niwas. 9. A bare perusal perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that while the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC after sifting through evidence, the learned Judge has discharged Dungar Ram for offence under Sections 135 and 150 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the learned Judge has been objective in his assessment of the evidence at the stage of framing of the charges. Hence, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.Both these petitions are devoid of any merit, the same are, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******