ORDER : 1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar in Session Case No.11/2020 whereby the learned trial court while framing charge against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 336, 427, 325, 323, 504/34 IPC, discharges them from offence under Section 308 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan of complainant/petitioner, FIR No.538/2018 was registered against the respondents No.2 to 4 to the effect that the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 illegally entered in her house and assaulted her. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 308, 336, 427, 325, 504/34 IPC. Thereafter, learned trial court after hearing arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 336, 427, 325, 323, 504/34 IPC, however, discharged them from offence under Section 308 IPC. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave error in law and facts while discharging the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 308 IPC despite the fact that prima facie there is ample evidence available against them. Counsel submits that as many as five persons were got injured in the incident. The petitioner/complainant received total nine injuries and injury No.5 was on her left forearm, which is classified as grievous in nature and injury No.1 is on frontal & parietal region of scalp. Though the said injury has been classified as simple in nature, but the same was caused on vital part of the body of the complainant. Counsel further submits that the other injured persons namely Mangilal received two injuries, Anil Kumar received one injury, Nawabdeen received two injuries and Suresh received three injuries. Injury No.2 sustained by the injured Suresh is on his head. It is contended that after thorough investigation, Police filed challan against the accused-respondents for offence under Section 308 IPC apart from other offences, but the learned trial court without assigning any cogent reason discharged the accused-respondents from offence under Section 308 IPC. Thus, the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Section 308 IPC. 4. Thus, the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Section 308 IPC. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for accused-respondents No.2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Doctor has clearly opined that none of the injuries is found to be dangerous to life and the grievous injury received by the petitioner is on her non-vital part of the body. Thus, the learned trial court has justified in discharging the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 308 IPC. The impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record. 6. In this case, the accused respondents illegally entered in the house of the petitioner and assaulted five persons and tried to cause injury on the vital part of the body of the injured persons. In the incident, total five persons were got injured. The petitioner/ complainant received total nine injuries, out of which, injury i.e. on her left forearm has been classified as grievous in nature and injury No.1 is on her frontal & parietal region of scalp i.e. vital part of the body. Likewise, injured Mangilal received two injuries, injured Anil Kumar received one injury, injured Nawabdeen received two injuries and injured Suresh received three injuries, out of which one injury was on his right frontal region of scalp. After investigation, Police also filed challan against the accused- respondents for offence under Section 308 IPC apart from other offences. While discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Section 308 IPC, the trial court observed that none of the injuries is found to be dangerous to life and no grievous injury was caused on vital partr of the body of the injured. This court is not satisfied with the observations made by the trial court. Prima facie there is ample evidence against accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for framing charge under Section 308 IPC. Thus, the learned trial court has committed grave illegality in discharging the respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Section 308 IPC. 7. In view of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. 8. Prima facie there is ample evidence against accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for framing charge under Section 308 IPC. Thus, the learned trial court has committed grave illegality in discharging the respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Section 308 IPC. 7. In view of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. 8. The order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 308 IPC. The trial court is directed to frame charge against the accused- respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Section 308 IPC. The remaining charges shall remain intact. 9. Stay application is also decided.