JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the trial court dated 8.1.1998 whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 307/34 and 324/34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that charge has been framed by the trial court by substituting its own opinion, though on record, opinion of the doctor was available which was very clear and explicit stating inter alia that none of the injuries were grievous and dangerous to life. All the injuries were simple. As and when, such simple injuries are caused, then no offence under Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1966 Page 68 (Rajasthan) Roopa and another v. State of Rajasthan wherein the trial court had convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC but this Court felt that accused should have been convicted under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners states mat in view of the ratio laid down by this Court that doctor's statement is very important wherein he says that vital Organs have not been effected, the trial court only should have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has urged that at the stage of framing charge under Section 228 IPC (sic. Cr.PC.) only, the trial court is required to frame its own opinion on the basis of the material on record. If the trial court has framed its opinion that prima facie an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, then revisional court should not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the opinion framed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel has relied upon 1998(2) RCD 898 (Raj.) Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan , 1998(2) RCD 1231, Bahdar Singh and others v. State and RLR 1995(2) 135 Kishan Singh v. State wherein this Court has expressed that at the stage of framing charge, nature of injury is not required to be looked into. What is to be seen is the inteltion of the accused. If the act has been performed in a particular manner, the court is at liberty to frame charge under Section 307 IPC notwithstanding that there is no serious injury inflicted to the injured. 4. What is to be seen is the inteltion of the accused. If the act has been performed in a particular manner, the court is at liberty to frame charge under Section 307 IPC notwithstanding that there is no serious injury inflicted to the injured. 4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that cases relied -upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. In all these cases, injuries were on head and they have been caused by deadly weapons, and therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. In the instant case, injuries are not on head. The injury has been caused by vegetable knife. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. The law laid down by this Court in the case reported in AIR 1966 (Raj.) 68 Roopa and another v. State of Rajasthan will not govern the facts of the present case because that was at the stage when this Court was considering an appeal after conviction and that was also when the parties have entered into the compromise. 7. In the instant case, injuries sustained by the injured are on abdomen. They are by knife. Maybe that they have not proved to be fatal but it cannot be said that offence under Section 307 IPC would not have been made out. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that weight age should be given to the medical evidence. This court feels that opinion of the doctor cannot always be considered to be conclusive piece of evidence. It is for the Court framing charge to examine the evidence. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that simple injuries were caused to the injured, is of no consequence in isolation. If the trial court has framed its opinion, then this Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not substitute its own. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. The revision petition having no force is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******