B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) THE III Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge Durg in Sessions Trial No. 79188 has framed charges against the applicants for alleged, offences punishable under sections 147, 307/34 Indian Penal Code, against which this revision is filed. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel Shri S. C. Dun for the applicant contended that in the alleged incident the victim Deolal sustained the following injuries (i) Lacerated wound on right thigh 1" x 1/2 muscle deep; (ii) Lacerated wound between left ring and little fingers 2 x 1/2 muscle deep; (iii) Difused swelling right hand and multiple abrasion in right forearm. Advosed ex-ray of right hand and fore-arm. Similarly Premlal sustained following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound left leg middle region 1/2 x 1/2 muscle deep, blackish. (ii) Lacerated wound left leg below injury No. 11 x 1/4 muscle deep blackish advised xray left leg. (iii) Contusion below right knee size 3 x 1" (iv) Abrasion right leg 1/2 x 1/2 (v) Contusion right thigh. (vi) Multiple abrasion right forearm, diffused swelling. (vii) Multiple abrasion left elbow. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The victims were admitted in the hospital and were discharged after 8 days. According to the medical opinion, none of the injuries were caused on vital part of the body. However, on x-ray fracture of Patella and 3rd left radius and fracture of lower end of right radius of Deolal were found. Fracture of Patela of right leg was also found. According to the medical opinion none of these injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in framing charge under Section 307 I. P. C. against the applicants. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. two elements are necessary to be satisfied, i. e. mens rea (guilty intention) and actus reus (act of the person complained against ). Considering the portion of the body injured and the nature of injuries, the intention of the applicant in this case could easily be gathered. Considering the portion of the body injured and the nature of injuries, the intention of the applicant in this case could easily be gathered. As such in order to bring the, offence within the purview of Section 307 I. P. C. the prosecution must establish that the intention or knowledge was of the description mentioned under section 300 I. P. C. Where evidence is not sufficient to establish with certainty the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge, the accused could only be convicted in lesser offence but not under Section 307 I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri S. C. Dutt further argued that while framing charge duty cast upon the court to look into the allegations made against the accused persons, as to whether, prima facie the accused persons could be convicted under the offences alleged against them. ( 5 ) NO doubt considering the scope of framing charge the allegations made against the accused persons, prima facie, duty casts upon the court to consider whether even if the charges as made are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, do constitute the offence alleged and in such cases, in the opinion of this court no question of importing any other material which is not on record, arises. ( 6 ) IF the facts of the instant case are tested with the above touchstone, it would be seen that applicants are only liable to be prosecuted Under Section 325 I. P. C. and, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the applicants is sustained. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed and the charge framed under Sections 147, 307/34 I. P. C. is altered into Charge under Sections 147, 325/34 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the case be remitted to the Magistrate, First Class, Durg for trial of the applicants in accordance with law. Revision allowed. .