Honble MOHD. YAMIN, J.–This is a petition to quash charge under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC levelled against the petitioners. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant. I have also gone through the record of the lower court. (3). The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 1.8.96 framed charge under Sec. 307 IPC against Bhadar Singh and Gopal Singh and under Sec. 307/34 against Vijay Singh and Madan Singh. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence does not disclose charge under Sec. 307 IPC against the accused petitioners. (5). On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition. (6). The story of the prosecution is that on 23.12.93 complainant asked Madan Singh to pay the debt outstanding towards him. Madan Singh was angry on this account. Madan Singh came alongwith co- accused persons at about 8.00 p.m. on the shop of the complainant. They had lethal weapons in their hands. Madan Singh used the chain made of iron and inflicted blow on his face. Complainant then went inside the house of Gajanand but the accused petitioners reached there and inflicted blows with lathi, iron angle and chain made of iron. Injuries on the head were inflicted. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no grievous injury on any part of the body of Richhpal Singh and the injury report does not mention that the injuries were such which would have caused the death of the injured. As per the injury report dated 24.12.93 Richhpal Singh had eight injuries. Out of them injury No. 3 was X-Rayed and was found to be simple one. It was on 4.1.94 that doctor reported that both the head injuries were abrasions which were superficial and bloodless. They were not sufficient to cause death. According to him, but in case of extensive bloodless, death might have occurred due to hupovaleonic shock. So according to the learned counsel for the petitioners these injuries were not at all sufficient to cause death and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have framed charges under Sec. 307 and 307/34 IPC against the petitioners. He relied on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Pol Singh & Ors. So according to the learned counsel for the petitioners these injuries were not at all sufficient to cause death and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have framed charges under Sec. 307 and 307/34 IPC against the petitioners. He relied on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Pol Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1) in which there was only one injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head and remaining injuries were inflicted on the non vital parts of the body. So it was observed that there was no intention of the accused to cause death. Reliance has also been placed on Kamla Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Raj. (2), wherein it has been observed that when the injuries found on the frontal region of scalp of injured Bhagwanlal were simple in nature and there was only a fracture of ulna the injury was not dangerous to life as stated by the doctor in his report and the witnesses have also not stated that the injuries were inflicted with an intention to cause death of the injured. Therefore, the charge under Sec.307 IPC was quashed. (8). From the evidence of Richhpal Singh, I find that it was during the day time that he had demanded his dues back from Madan Singh. Madan Singh, therefore, had an illwill and in order to kill him he alongwith co-accused persons came to his shop in the evening. They were armed with lethal weapons. Madan Singh had a cy- cle chain, Gopal Singh an iron angle and other co-accused persons had lathis. Madan Singh gave a chain blow on his face. He ran away towards the house of Gajanand where all the petitioners surrounded him. He was beaten mercilessly. On his cries, Gajanand, Inder Singh, Gopal Singh and Panney Singh came and rescued him. These witnesses have supported Richhpal Singh. Of course injuries, as per report of the doctor, were not sufficient to cause death but the intention of the accused persons is very material. They had come with preparation and with intention to kill Richhpal Singh. Of course at this stage the conclusion about inadequacy of the evidence against the accused would be pre mature assessment of evidence which was not held proper by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 121 (3). They had come with preparation and with intention to kill Richhpal Singh. Of course at this stage the conclusion about inadequacy of the evidence against the accused would be pre mature assessment of evidence which was not held proper by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 121 (3). In Richhpal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (4), a similar question arose and it was held that at the stage of charge when circumstances raise strong suspicion against the petitioner though injuries might be simple, simpleness has no importance at the time of framing of the charge. In Akbar vs. State & Ors. (5), it was observed that at the time of framing of charge it is not to be seen whether from the evidence available on record the accused would be convicted or acquitted. The evidence is not to be weighed sensitive balance. It is well settled that the strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge against an accused. When there is evidence to the effect that the accused petitioners had come with an intention to kill, I am not inclined to accept this revision petition. However, the lower court will be free to draw its own conclusion on the basis of evidence which comes during the trial. (9). Consequently, there is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.