JUDGMENT 1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 01, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 53/2016 whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injuries caused to the injured Rajeshwari are all simple in nature and not dangerous to life, therefore the offence under Section 307 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioners. Thus the order of framing charge against the petitioners is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. 4. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the perusal of the injury report of the injured Rejeshwari, it is apparent that she has sustained seven injuries, out of which, two injuries i.e. injury Nos. 1 & 2 are sustained on her head. In her statement, the injured Rajeshwari has specifically mentioned that the accused Gomand Ram inflicted head injury to her. Thus, prima facie it is apparent that the accused-petitioners have committed the offences as framed against them. 6. It is the well settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings evidence is not required to be analyzed as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. It is also well settled that at this stage of the proceedings only the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation which has been produced alongwith the charge-sheet is required to be considered. 7. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 341, 323, 307, 34 IPC against the accused-petitioners. 8. 7. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 341, 323, 307, 34 IPC against the accused-petitioners. 8. The revision thus being bereft of any force, is hereby rejected.