JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ladnun, District Nagaur whereby learned Judge framed the charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 308, 447, 323, 504 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the injury report of injured Sita Devi, she received two injuries and both the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Counsel submits that a specific query was made by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Doctor whether the injuries caused to Sita Devi were dangerous to life or not. In response to the said query, the Doctor opined that both the injuries were simple in nature and not dangerous to life. Thus, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that in the FIR, the complainant-injured levelled allegation of offence under Section 376/511 IPC against the petitioner but during investigation, the Police did not find the said offence to be proved against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order of framing charge has ignored the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Thus, the learned trial court has committed error in framing the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC against the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the point raised by the counsel for the petitioner shall be considered by the trial court during the trial. Thus, the order impugned is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. It is 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. 6. In the present case, after thorough investigation, Police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 447, 323, 504, 308 IPC and thereafter the trial court framed the charge against the petitioner for the said offence. 7. According to the injury report, injured Sita Devi received two injuries. Injury No. 1 is on her right side of lower chest and Injury No. 2 is on abdomen. Both the injuries are found to be simple in nature but they are caused on the vital parts of the body of the injured. Moreover, the statement of the injured Sita Devi has also been recorded before the trial court as PW-1 and she specifically deposed that the petitioner caused the injuries to her on the vital part of the body and due to the said injuries, she remained hospitalized for six days at Jaipur. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC against the present petitioner. 9. However, if during the course of trial any evidence is brought on record before the trial court by the petitioner, then the trial court shall consider the same at the final stage of the trial. 10. The revision thus being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.