JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition, under section 397, Cr. P.C., the petitioner challenges the order dated September 224, 1993 of the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran), Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions case No. 106/93, whereby he ordered to frame charges under Sections 307, 324, 336, 326 and 457, IPC and S. 4/27 of the Indian Arms Act against the petitioner. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries sustained by Smt. Sada Kanwar are simple in nature and they were not opined by the doctor to be either dangerous to her life or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was contended that the petitioner had also sustained a number of injuries by a sharp-edged weapon and it was he who was attacked by the members of the complainant-party. Reliance has been placed on Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1987 (2) RLR 586 = 1987 RCC 142) ; Vasudeo v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Bom. 279) ; Ramu and others v. The State of Rajasthan (1984 RCC 167) ; Bodu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1992 (1) WLN 122) and Dau Dayal v. State of Rajasthan ( 1990 (1) WLN 515 ) . 2. In order to appreciate the above submissions, necessary facts of the case may be given. 3. The victim in the case is Smt. Sada Kanwar, the wife of the petitioner-Richhpal Singh. It appears that their marriage had taken place in the year, 1971,but, subsequently, their relations became strained. The complaint of the wife is that the petitioner has married again with Laxmi Kanwar on March 11, 1993, against her wishes. So far as the present incident is concerned, a report was made by Smt. Sada Kanwar at Police Station, Jhotwara, at 12.15 a.m. for an incident, which had taken place at 11 p.m. in the same night. In other words, the report was lodged just after one hour of the incident. It was stated in the report that the petitioner entered her house with a sword at 11p.m. in the night and assaulted her with the sword. When her two brothers tried to rescue her they were also assaulted. The injuries of Smt. Sada Kanwar were examined by the doctor and he found nine injuries on her person. However, on bony injury was noticed on x-ray examination. When her two brothers tried to rescue her they were also assaulted. The injuries of Smt. Sada Kanwar were examined by the doctor and he found nine injuries on her person. However, on bony injury was noticed on x-ray examination. The police registered a criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 451, 336,307 and 323,IPC and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was also filed for the aforesaid offences. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has framed the charges and this order is under- challenge in this revision petition. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. At this stage, it cannot be disputed that Smt. Sada Kanwar was attacked by the petitioner with a sword at about mid night. She has sustained a number of injuries by sword blows. It is true that none of the injuries has been opined to be dangerous to her life and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by the doctor,but,still, the question arises whether the learned trial Judge committed error in framing charge for the offence under section 307, IPC. It may be stated here that Smt. Sada Kanwar has stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., that the petitioner had performed a second marriage with Smt. Laxmi Kanwar on March 11, 1993, against her wishes and while she was in her house at Plot No.,82A, Kailash Nagar, Jhotwara alongwith her brother Mithu Singh and cousin brother-Dalip Singh, the petitioner came with a sword. He entered the house after breaking glasses and assaulted her with the sword. Her brothers were also assaulted when they tried to rescue her. While assaulting, the petitioner was saying her to go out from the plot, otherwise, she would be murdered..Similar statements have been made by Mithu Singh and Dalip Singh.It appears that Richhapal Singh-petitioner also made a report at Police Station, Jhotwara at 12.25 a.m. in the night on May 25, 1993 and according to him, the incident had taken place at 9 a.m. and he was assaulted by the complainant and co-accused Mithu Singh and Dalip Singh. The petitioner-Richhpal Singh is said to have sustained 17 injuries mostly by blunt object. 4. The petitioner-Richhpal Singh is said to have sustained 17 injuries mostly by blunt object. 4. The first question for consideration is whether the learned trial judge committed an error in framing the charge for the offence under section 307,IPC,as the injuries sustained by Smt. Sada Kanwar and her two brothers were simple in nature. S. 307, IPC, reads as under: "S. 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 hereinabove mentioned. 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." 5. A bare perusal of S. 307, IPC, would show that it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. It may not be disputed that the nature of injury actually caused is very much relevant and provides considerable assistance in coming to a conclusion as to the intention of the accused. But such intentions may also be deduced from other circumstances, namely, the weapon used, the time of the incident, object of the assault and the victim of the assault etc. In State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil ( AIR 1983 SC 305 ) , it was laid down as under 'To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned,but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned,but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with someovertact in execution thereof." 6. Therefore, simply because the injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature, it cannot be held at this stage that charge under section 307, IPC, could not be framed against the petitioner. One should not forget that the victim is the wife of the petitioner himself. The weapon of offence was a sword, which is a formidable one. Attack was made at mid night and the petitioner entered the house, after breaking glasses. He gave several blows with the sword to the victim and asked her to go out from house, otherwise she would be done to death. All these circumstances, in my opinion, raise strong suspicion against the petitioner that he committed the offence under section 307, IPC. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) , it has been held as under : "Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the judge in order to frame a charge against the accused." Even whereas there are two possible views to frame a charge or not to frame a charge, the Court should frame a charge as it would advance the cause of justice, namely, to bring the real offender to book, If a charge is not framed, then ultimately, it may cause prejudice in the case. Otherwise also, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court should not go into the niceties of the matter and once the trial Judge has taken the view to frame the charge, which cannot be said to be absurd or erroneous on its face value, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. In Ramdayal's case (supra), the question of framing charge under section 307, IPC, was not involved and it has no relevance in the present case. In Boduram's case (supra), the charge was framed by the trial court under section 326, IPC, and the revision was filed for framing charge under section 307,IPC. This Court observed : "Interference in revision can be made only when there is illegality in the proceedings and in this case looking to the opinion of the doctor it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any illegality so as to call for interference in this revision." 8. Pradeep Kumar's case (supra) was decided on its own facts, as there was one simple injury, having depth 1/4". This decision also does not render any assistance to the petitioner. 9. Pradeep Kumar's case (supra) was decided on its own facts, as there was one simple injury, having depth 1/4". This decision also does not render any assistance to the petitioner. 9. In Vasudeo Balwant Gogte's case (supra), the matter came in appeal, after conviction of the accused under section 307, IPC, and it was observed as under "What S. 307 really means is that the accused must do an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. If an act is done with a sufficiently guilty intention and knowledge and in circumstances which do not form their nature afford a defence to a charge of murder, and if the act is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond the accused's control which prevented that result, then the case falls within section 307." 10. The above authorities, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not lay down that no charge under section 307, IPC, can be framed, if the injury/injuries is/are simple in nature or in the absence of an opinion of the doctor that the same were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 11. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for in the impugned order and the revision petition is, hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******