JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revisions are to be decided by this common order as the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ratangarh dated 23.4.1998 is challenged by both the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one Mahendra Kumar Jain reported to police on 15.12.1997 that during the night falling in between I4/15.12.1997 he and some other persons were going to Momassar to Ratangarh. Two boys called them near the railway crossing Rajaldesar asking them to stop the vehicle. The inmates of the jeep thought that they were railway employees. The boys started beating them and when a noise was heard, station master came along with two railway employees. Sampat Lal, maternal uncle of Mahendra Kumar, was beaten by these two accused persons and they inflicted injuries on the head of Sampat Lal. Mahendra Kumar was also given beatings. Both the accused petitioners were under influence of liquor. It was further alleged that they snatched the locket which Sampat Lal was wearing. After investigation the petitioners were prosecuted for offence under section 307, IPC. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under section 307/34 IPC against the petitioners and the same order is challenged before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that injury on the head of Sampat Lal was not sufficient to cause death and as such the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not right in framing charge under section 307, 1PC. He has prayed that the petitioners be discharged from offence under section 307, IPC. 5. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order. 6. We may recapitulate the scene. Mahendra Kumar and his maternal uncle Sampat Lal are going in a jeep. The time is 12.15 p.m. Two boys ask them to stop the vehicle. They think that the boys may he in some difficulty and want some help. They stop the vehicle. As soon as they come out, the boys attack on them. Boys are having bottles of liquor in their hands and attack on Sampat Lal with these bottles and cause a 6cm x I &1/2 cm x bone deep incised horizontal wound on scalp in occipital region on lower part. They stop the vehicle. As soon as they come out, the boys attack on them. Boys are having bottles of liquor in their hands and attack on Sampat Lal with these bottles and cause a 6cm x I &1/2 cm x bone deep incised horizontal wound on scalp in occipital region on lower part. He is taken to hospital within 3 hours. Even at that time blood is oozing from the wound. 7. Learned counsel even then says that since the injury was not grievous no charge under section 307, IPC could he made out against the accused-petitioners. I do not agree with this argument. A charge can be framed even in strong suspicious circumstances. Of course one of injuries of Mahendra Kumar is caused by a blunt weapon but the other injury which was found on the pinna of left ear was caused by the sharp weapon. The bottles of beer which were made of glass are such that when they are struck on the head they are broken and caused sharp injures. 8. It is the intention of the accused-petitioners which is also very material. Prima facie in this case it is found that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which was caused on the head of Sampat Lal and it was not accidental or unintentional. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case the revisions petition have no force and they are hereby dismissed.Petition rejected. *******