JUDGMENT The State has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Datia, thereby the case was remitted by him under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, for trying the offence, as it was found that no offence triable by the Court of Session, particularly under section 307 of I.P.C. was disclosed. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated : A report was lodged by one Ashok that when he and his uncle Rameshwar went to their agricultural field, they found that due to the diversion of water towards their field, by the respondents, the field was filled with water. They objected to the respondents' action and thereupon, respondent Ramsewak went towards his house and brought his 12 bore licenced gun and fired a shot at his uncle Rameshwar, which caused him the gun shot injury on his left thigh. Respondent Rishi Kumar is alleged to have assaulted injured Rameshwar with farsha on the thigh above the left knee. When the complainant tried to intervene, he was caught hold by respondents, and out of them, Prakash and Rishi Kumar assaulted him by farsha, which caused him injuries on the right cheek and the wrist of his left hand. The police on such report had registered the case under sections 307, 324 red with section 34 of I.P.C. After the investigation, the challan was filed by Police under sections 307, 324, 201 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate finding the case to be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the accused to stand their trial for the offences including section 307 of I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge on his consideration found that the injuries caused to injured Rameshwarand Ashok were on the non-vital parts of the body. There was no intention of the respondents to caush death, and therefore, remitted the case to the Magistrate under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for trying the offence. Hence, this petition. Both the parties were heard and the record was perused. There was no intention of the respondents to caush death, and therefore, remitted the case to the Magistrate under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for trying the offence. Hence, this petition. Both the parties were heard and the record was perused. From the version of the complainant party itself and from the injury certificates, it appears that though the alleged gun shot was fired by respondent No. 1 Ramsewak it injured Rameshwar from a very close range as the blackening, scorching and tattooing were found by the doctor around the wound, yet the gun was aimed only at the lower part of the body. No fracture was found. The incised injury also, on the person of Rameshwar, was found on the left thigh above the knee joint, which was simple. The other injured Ashok had suffered two incised injuries-one on the right cheek and the other on the left arm below the elbow. Both the injuries were simple in nature. The intention of the assailant is to be gathered from many circumstances including the utterances he made. When a gun shot is fired from a very close range and the injury is caused on the thigh, without any intervention of any person, then merely because there was gun fire, it cannot be presumed nor even suspected that the intention of the assailant was to cause death of the person receiving the injury. Had the injury been from a distance, it could be alleged that the person firing the shot was not a good marksman. But that situation not being there in the present case and the other injuries also having been found to be simple in nature and there being no other circumstance even to suspect that there was any intention of the accused/respondents to cause death of any of the injured, the Court below cannot be faulted with for not framing a charge under section 307 of I.P.C. against the respondents and in remitting their case to the Magistrate for trying the offences. On the above discussion, I have found no substance in this revision petition and it is, therefore, dismissed.