JUDGMENT This revision petition by one of the injured Govind is directed against framing of charge against the accused persons under section 326/149, 148 and 324 I.P.C. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 6 should have been charged under section 307 I.P.C., instead of under section 326 I.P.C., along with other offences with which they have been charged. The prosecution case in short is that on 7.1.1989 at about 12.30 p.m. at Dixitpura, Jabalpur, the complainant Ashok Kumar and the petitioner Govind were going on a scooter when they were stopped by the second respondent Ashok Kumar Shukla and the second respondent assaulted the complainant with knife. When the petitioner Govind intervened, the 3rd, 4th and 5th and 6th respondents have attacked him with knives. The complainant Ashok Kumar and the petitioner Govind received injuries on their persons. The F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant on the same day, i.e. on 7.9.1989. There is an allegation in the F.I.R. that apart from the injuries caused by knives, the 5th respondent Munna alias Rakesh fired a Katta aiming at them. The petitioner and the complainant Ashok Kumar were medically examined. The complainant had received four injuries, whereas petitioner Govind received six injuries. . The order of the Additional Sessions Judge shows that the injuries caused by knives are grievous in nature as envisaged under section 320-A I.P.C. However, the Court was of the opinion that had there been an intention to cause the murder, then injuries would have been more dangerous and that they would have been caused on vital parts of the body and would have been bigger in dimension. The medical report of the complainant shows injuries on the chest also. It is also to be noted that as many as five persons attacked the petitioner Govind and the complainant Ashok Kumar with knives and the complainant received four injuries, whereas petitioner received six injuries. There is statement of the complainant and Govind, apart from the other witnesses, that they have been attacked with knives by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th and 6th respondents. To constitute an offence under section 307 I.P.C., the Court is required to see whether the act, irrespective of the result, was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute the offence of murder. To constitute an offence under section 307 I.P.C., the Court is required to see whether the act, irrespective of the result, was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute the offence of murder. At the initial stage of the trial, the Court need not weigh the prosecution evidence to appreciate its truthfulness or veracity. If the evidence procured shows even a strong suspicion which leads the Court for presuming that the accused has committed an offence with which he has been charged, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge under that section. At the stage of framing of the charge, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of the 2nd to 6th respondents to cause the death of the petitioner Govind and the complainant Ashok Kumar, especially when they have been attacked with knives. Therefore, the Court has committed an error in framing charge against respondents 2 to 6 only for an offence under section 326 I.P.C. The nature of evidence does not rule out the intention of the respondents 2 to 6 to cause the death of the petitioner and the complainant and the Court should have framed a charge under section 307 I.P.C. also along with other section against the respondents 2 to 6. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the 5th Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is directed to frame charges against the accused persons under sections 307/149, 148 and 342 I.P.C.