ORDER : Sandeep Shah, J. 1. In the present revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.02/2024 (State vs. Suresh & Anr.), whereby charges were framed against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 323, 325/34 & 307/34 of IPC. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that based upon a written report submitted by the complainant - Suresh, an FIR came to be lodged against the present petitioners on 12.10.2023 at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, bearing no.184/2023. In the complaint in question, the complainant - Suresh stated that on 11.10.2023 at around 06:30 PM his real brother- Manohar Lal S/o Ramchandra, aged 20 years, and his cousin brother (uncle’s son)- Mahendra S/o Ramuram, aged 24 years, were on their way to search the buffaloes and reached the road from Badi Nadi to Kharda, where Ramchandra S/o Hajari Ram, Ramkishore S/o Ramchandra, Suresh S/o Ramchandra, wife of Ramchandra and 10-15 persons stopped them and started assaulting them by axe, knife, iron rods and lathis. Post assaulting them, Mahendra was dragged by a tractor and was seriously injured due to the head injury and other injuries caused on his body. Furthermore, Manohar Lal also sustained injuries on his head and on other parts of the body caused by knife. 3. It was further stated that Manohar Lal lost consciousness, and thereafter, upon information being given to the police, Manohar Lal was taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, Mahendra ran away and informed about the incident to the complainant. Upon which, the family members reached the hospital, and thereafter, both the injured persons were taken to Mathuradas Mathur Hospital at Jodhpur, as they were referred to a higher centre. The complainant asserted that the accused snatched the mobile phones of Manohar Lal and Mahendra, and also snatched Rs.35,000/- which was carried by Manohar Lal as receipt of amount after sale of gwar by him. Post lodging of FIR, the police conducted the investigation and recorded statements of various persons including the injured witnesses and post recovery, based upon information given by all three petitioners, lathis and Tractor were recovered. Further, based upon the information divulged by the accused, the site was verified where the incident took place. The injury report of the injured and the site plan etc. were prepared. Further, based upon the information divulged by the accused, the site was verified where the incident took place. The injury report of the injured and the site plan etc. were prepared. The police, after thorough investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 341, 307/34 of IPC. The police, however, held that the case under Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 379 of IPC with regard to snatching of mobile phone or money was not made. Post taking of cognizance and committal of case, the learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, by way of order impugned, framed the charges for the offences as stated (supra). Being aggrieved against the same, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet filed by the police itself will reveal that the incident, in essence, never happened and the complainant has made a mountain out of a mole, wherein false allegations with regard to snatching of money and mobile phone were also levelled, which the police itself has found to be untrue. He further submits that as per the FIR, the allegation levelled was assaulting the injured with axe , knife, iron rods and lathis whereas as per the injury report, no such corresponding injury has been caused and all the injuries caused are by blunt weapon. He further submits that initially, based upon the complaint lodged by the accused, proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against Rumaram and other family members of the injured and post that, on the next date, the FIR in question has been lodged as a retributive step, without there being any incident. He further asserts that a perusal of the injury report will reveal that the injury in question does not fall beyond the scope of Section 325 of IPC, and therefore, framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC is fallacious, and the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count. 5. He further asserts that a perusal of the injury report will reveal that the injury in question does not fall beyond the scope of Section 325 of IPC, and therefore, framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC is fallacious, and the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the order impugned, submits that though in the FIR, allegation of theft and use of sharp weapon has been alleged, however, the statement of injured witnesses itself will clearly reveal that blunt weapon was used, and the corresponding injury upon the injured witnesses fortifies the fact that the petitioners had all the intention and knowledge to commit the murder and, therefore, the charge under Section 307 of IPC has rightly been framed. He further asserts that there have been repeated injuries on the vital part, i.e. temporal region and parietal region, as well as occipital region of injured Manohar Lal, and also on parietal region of injured Mahendra, and four injuries on the body of Manohar Lal have been found to be grievous in nature, out of which, two injuries have been found to be dangerous to life. Thus, all the necessary ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are prima facie made out, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed the charges for the offence in question. He thus prays for dismissal of the present revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the present case. 7. The only issue for consideration is as to whether the trial Court was justified in framing charge against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and other offences. As far as Section 307 IPC is concerned, the same provides as under: “ 307. Attempt to Murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts. Attempts by life convicts. — [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] Illustrations (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of [the first paragraph of] this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 8. A bare perusal of the same will reveal that for bringing home the offence under Section 307 IPC, the intention and knowledge on the part of the assailants that the act under such circumstances, if done, would cause death, is necessary. Thus, there may be circumstances, under which, no injury is caused, then too, an offence under Section 307 IPC would be made out and on the contrary, there may be cases where, even if, injury is caused still the offence under Section 307 IPC will not be made out. The knowledge & intention are very important and relevant element for consideration as to whether the alleged act would fall under the ambit of Section 307 IPC or not. 9. The knowledge & intention are very important and relevant element for consideration as to whether the alleged act would fall under the ambit of Section 307 IPC or not. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar ” 1964 SCC Online SC 236 , “Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.” (1988) 4 SCC 551 , “ Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra ” (2004) 9 SCC 31 , has held that there are various factors which are considered for making of the offence under Section 307 of IPC and facts, with regard to the nature of injury, the weapon used, site of injury, place of occurrence of incident, injury being repetitive or single, previous enimosity between the parties and other surrounding circumstances, have to be considered to find out whether the offence falls within the ambit of Section 307 of IPC or not. 10. Thus, taking guidance from the abovementioned judgments as well as the language of Section 307 IPC, it is clear that the prosecution has been burdened to ensure that they show the intention and knowledge of the petitioners in causing injury to injured Mahendra and Manohar Lal knowing it to be sufficient to cause death . Until and unless that part is done, the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be made out. Furthermore, the state of mind of the offender has to be determined for the purpose of bringing home the offence under Section 307 IPC. The conduct of the offender after the incident, the site and nature of the injury, the weapon used, the motive for the crime, the presence of mens rea, the manner in which the incident happened i.e. accidental owing to a sudden fight or planned etc. are relevant considerations for determining as to whether the offence would fall under Section 307 IPC or not. Intention or knowledge is again a state of mind of an offender and the same is to be inferred from ancillary circumstances as no physical evidence can be produced with regard to the intention of the mind of the offender. The inference can be drawn from the circumstances, as narrated above i.e. number of injuries, nature of injuries, weapon used, etc. 11. The inference can be drawn from the circumstances, as narrated above i.e. number of injuries, nature of injuries, weapon used, etc. 11. In the present case, considering the entire record, it is clear that the site of the incident was on the way near the house of the accused, who after assaulting the injured Mahendra and Manohar Lal, dragged Mahendra on the Tractor to their home, and thereafter assaulted him at vital part of his body i.e. the head. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the injury report will reveal that there are not one, but two injuries on the vital parts of the body of injured Manohar, the first being on the left parietal and occipital region on the scalp and the second being on right temporal region on the scalp. Similarly, there is one lacerated wound on the body of Mahendra on right parietal region on his scalp. Rest of the injuries on body of Manohar Lal are mostly on his cheek, and four injuries have been found to be grievous, out of which, two injuries on the head have been found to be dangerous to life by the Doctor also. Furthermore, the statements of injured Mahendra and Manohar Lal have been fortified by the statements of Ramchandra, Ramoram, the complainant - Suresh and Sonaram. Not only this, pursuant to the information given under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, from all the accused-petitioners, lathis have been recovered, which was used by them for causing the injury in question and even all the petitioners have identified the site where the incident took place. Not only this, the tractor which was used to drag Mahendra from site-X to site-X1 (as per the site plan) has also been recovered. Furthermore, bloodstained clothes have been recovered from the accused, which also prima facie fortifies their involvement in commission of the crime in question. Thus, there was ample material available on record to prima facie form an opinion with regard to the commission of crime punishable under Section 307 of IPC by the petitioners. Furthermore, bloodstained clothes have been recovered from the accused, which also prima facie fortifies their involvement in commission of the crime in question. Thus, there was ample material available on record to prima facie form an opinion with regard to the commission of crime punishable under Section 307 of IPC by the petitioners. As regards the defence tried to be taken by the petitioners with regard to the cross case being lodged by them two days earlier, the same cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge, and even otherwise, simply because proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated on 10.08.2023 would not make much difference, as the incident in question is an independent incident, and therefore, the trial Court had rightly framed the charges under Section 307 of IPC. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, dealt with the powers of the Court while framing charges and the relevant considerations qua the same. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation : 2010 9 SCC 368 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “ Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C. 21 . On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 24 . At the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. or while considering the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or a Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability etc. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and free to take a decision one way or the other.” 13. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and free to take a decision one way or the other.” 13. In the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation : 2020 2 SCC 768 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the considerations to be undertaken at the stage of framing of charge, held as under:- “ LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO AN APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE 17 . This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions, viz., P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles:- 17.1 If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2 The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3 The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4 If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”. 17.5 It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6 The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7 At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8 There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 17.8 There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18 . The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. (See State of J & K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, “the record of the case”, used in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the Police (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi ). 14. Recently, in the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.: 2023 7 SCC 633 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:- “ 11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.” 15. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.” 15. Thus, it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, though the power of weighing and sifting of evidence is limited only to the extent of assessing whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner-accused or not and, even if, there is a case of mere suspicion, the Court is required to frame charge and proceed with the trial. However, it is also clear that there has to be proper application of mind by the learned trial Court with regard to the charges it is framing and, that too, after consideration of the entire record. Even after accepting the version of the prosecution and consideration of the entire record, if the prosecution fails to establish that the petitioner-accused has committed a particular offence, then there exists no sufficient ground for the trial Court to proceed with the trial for that particular offence and the learned trial Court ought to discharge the petitioner-accused for the offence in question at the stage of framing charge itself. 16. Considering the case in hand, as pointed out above, the necessary ingredients including mens rea, knowledge, intention, the repetitive injuries, nature of injury, the weapon used, the site of injury and place of occurrence, collectively point out to only one conclusion, that prima facie, all the ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325, 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC are made out against the present petitioners. The trial Court was thus justified in framing charges for the offence abovementioned against the petitioners. 17. The upshot of the above-mentioned observations is that the present Criminal Revision Petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. The order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.02/2024 titled as “State of Rajasthan v. Suresh & Anr.” framing charges against the accused-petitioner is upheld. 17. The upshot of the above-mentioned observations is that the present Criminal Revision Petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. The order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.02/2024 titled as “State of Rajasthan v. Suresh & Anr.” framing charges against the accused-petitioner is upheld. It is, however, made clear that any observation made by this Court while deciding the present revision petition are only prima facie in nature and the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. The Learned Court shall proceed to determine the outcome of the trial based solely on the material available. 18. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.