JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khethari, district Jhunjhunu ordered to frame charges under Sections 148, 452, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 149 in Sessions Case No. 17/2000. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Sh. Gulghari Lal was in the house of his nephew Phoola Ram. At about 10.30 on 6.7.1999 all the six accused petitioners along with 10-12 other persons armed with Lathi, Jail, Sariya and Barchi came and first gave beating to Phoola Ram, thereafter he was taken out of room and was beaten. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed under the aforesaid Sections and the learned Trial Judge ordered to frame the charges as stated here- in-above. 3. Learned counsel contended that no grievous injury was caused on any vital part of the body of Sh. Guljhari Lal and further there is no injury by sharp edged weapon and injured Sh. Guljhari Lal has already submitted an application before the Trial Court for permission to compromise the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed it and contended that only intention has to be seen and it is not essential that any injury sufficient to cause death ought to have necessarily been caused. Reliance is placed upon Brijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan 2001(2) RCC 613 . I have considered the rival submissions. It is observed here that learned counsel for the accused petitioners has confined his submissions only for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. To constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. it is necessary to show that the accused does any act with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act death is caused, he would be guilty of murder. According to the F.I.R. in all 16 to 18 persons including six accused petitioners came to the house of nephew of injured Sh. Guljhari Lal. They were armed with Sariya, Barchi and other weapons like Lathi and Jaili, all gave beatings to Sh. Guljhari Lal. According to medical report not a single injury was found by sharp edged weapon and out of 13 injuries four were found grievous which were on left leg, right leg and forearm. Thus no grievous injury even by blunt weapon was caused to any vital part of the body. Guljhari Lal. According to medical report not a single injury was found by sharp edged weapon and out of 13 injuries four were found grievous which were on left leg, right leg and forearm. Thus no grievous injury even by blunt weapon was caused to any vital part of the body. No doubt, only intention has to be seen and it is not always necessary to cause injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but the intention can be inferred from the nature of injuries, the part of the body having injuries, nature of weapon used. In the present case, the accused petitioners are said to be armed with Barchi, Sariya but no such injury was found by any sharp edged weapon and as stated here-in-above no grievous injury was on any vital pare of the body while according to the F.I.R., the number of assailants was 16 to 18. 4. Keeping in view all these facts, prima facie case under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. Further, in view of grievous injuries by blunt weapon, offence under Section 325 I.P.C. prima facie is made out. Therefore, this revision is allowed only to this extent that offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is not made out and accused petitioners stand discharged for this offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. They would face trial for other offences.Revision partly allowed. *******