JUDGMENT 1. - This revision filed by complainant-petitioner is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 31.1.1996, whereby the learned Judge has discharged the accused-respondents for the offence u/s. 308 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents. Arguments were heard. 3. It is argued on behalf of the complainant-petitioner that there is prima facie case that accused-respondents have inflicted injury on the head of Dalu Ram. It is argued that from the circumstances of the case, it is clear that offence u/s. 308 was made out against the accused persons and learned lower Court was wrong to say that there was no evidence that accused persons were intending to commit the murder of Dalu Ram. Police filed challan against the accused persons for offence u/s. 308 and not u/s. 307 IPC. The trial Court has not examined the case for Section 308 IPC, but examined the same for Section 307 IPC. 4. I have heard on this point learned counsel for accused-respondents and learned Public Prosecutor. Trial Court has observed that there is no such evidence which shows that accused persons had intention to commit the murder of Dalu Ram. I agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner that in the present matter, challan was filed against the accused persons for offence u/s. 308 IPC and not for Section 307 IPC and trial Court has discharged these accused persons for Section 308 IPC on the ground that there is no proof that accused persons had intention to commit the murder of Dalu Ram. I am of the view that lower Court had to see the intention of committing murder in case of Section 307 IPC and not in Section 308 IPC. Ingredients of Section 307 and Section 308 are different. Offence u/s. 308 IPC is made out when any person does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Lower Court has appreciated the matter as it was examining the case u/s. 307 IPC because if the accused persons caused injury to the injured with the intention to commit his murder, then the matter would be covered u/s. 307 IPC. Under these circumstances, revision is accepted. Lower Court has appreciated the matter as it was examining the case u/s. 307 IPC because if the accused persons caused injury to the injured with the intention to commit his murder, then the matter would be covered u/s. 307 IPC. Under these circumstances, revision is accepted. Order of the lower Court dated 31.1.1996 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the lower Court with a direction to examine the matter afresh, whether against these accused persons offence u/s. 308 IPC is made out or not. 5. Copy of this order alongwith record be sent back.Revision petition allowed. *******