JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - This case is taken out of turn from the weekly as mission list on the request of Learned Counsel for the petitoner on the ground of urgency and on consent of learned Standing Counsel as he is ready. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner in this revision is the accused in S.T. No. 103 of 2002 pending in the Court of Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore. As per order dated 16.8.2002, the impugned order, he has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to discharge him from the offence under Sections 307 I.P.C and by that order also he framed charge for the offence under Sections 307, 294 and 506 (1) I.P.C. Petitioner confines his grievance to the charge framed for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. 4. Mr. Oebasis Panda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that when the injured has sustained a simple injury on his face, from that circumstance it cannot be presumed that there was an attempt to murder and therefore Petitioner could not have been charged for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. In support of that contention he places reliance on the case of Mathew Omalt and Anr. v. State of Orissa 57 (1984) C.L.T. 805. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, referring to the impugned order and the facts noted therein by the trial court, advances argument in support of framing of charge for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. He argues that case of Mathew (supra) in a sense supports the impugned order. He also refers to several decisions from the Apex Court in support of his contention relating to the manner in which High Court should exercise revisional jurisdiction in such matter and also relating to the duty of the trial court while in seisin of a sessions trial at the stage under Sections 227, and 228 Code of Criminal Procedure 6. After nearing the parties, this Court find it difficult to accept the contention of the Petitioner in view.of the following quoted circumstances from the impugned order and the settled position of law. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has recorded that:? It is seen that while the accd. was quarrelling with the victim, the mother of the accd. handed over a Katuri and asked him to finish of the victim. Accd. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has recorded that:? It is seen that while the accd. was quarrelling with the victim, the mother of the accd. handed over a Katuri and asked him to finish of the victim. Accd. as per direction of her mother took the Katari to his hands and aimed a blow on the head of the victim saying "SALA MAGIHA TOTE AJI JIBANARU MARIDEBI" but somehow the victim in order to avoid the blow changed his position and as a result he was saved and sustained minor injury on the face. 7. In the case of Shree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad etc. v. Dillip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. 1989 (l) Cri 443, while considering an order of discharge made by the High Court in revision against the order of framing of charge by the trial court for the dowry death of a bride, the Apex Court, while setting aside the discharge order of the High Court observed as follows: 17. We wish to add a word regarding interference by the High Court against a charge framed by the Sessions Court. Section 227 which confers power to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the ardous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself. The. power has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials. Besides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides before framing any charge against the accused or for discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the Court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to in verdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. 8. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to in verdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. 8. In that decision also the Apex Court referred to the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, and supported the principle relating to the factum which is required to be considered at the stage of the proceeding under Sections 227 and 228 Code of Criminal Procedure 9. In the above noted two decisions, the ratio propounded by the Apex Court is that at,the stage of consideration of charge that is to say whether to discharge the accused or to frame charge, trial court is required to find out regarding existence of a prima facie case constituting the offence for which it proposes to frame charge. Strong suspicion arising against the accused from the evidence on record is sufficient for presuming that accused has committed an offence and thereafter, it is open for the trial court to frame charge. Similar is the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others. Even in the case of Mathew Omalt (supra) the decision on which Petitioner places reliance, this Court has held that in order to find that an offence u/s 307 I.P.C. was committed, the nature of the offence, the size of the injury, the move of the accused and his attendant conduct are relevant factors." 10. As it appears, keeping in view the nature of the injury, lack of motive to kill and the other attendant circumstances, in that case accused was discharged from the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. In this case too Petitioner desires that he should be discharged by following the same ratio. It is too well known a settled principle that a fact has no binding precedent. It is too well known a settled principle that a fact has no binding precedent. In that case order was passed to discharge the accused from the offence u/s 307, inter alia on the ground of lack of motive but in the case at hand as has been noted by the trial Court (as quoted in para 6) blow was dealt aiming at a vital part of the body with the intention to kill. Thus fact in this case is distinguishable from the case of Mathew Omalt (supra) 9. As it appears, Petitioner has confused about the requirement of law to construe the term 'existence of a prima facie case'. With reference to discharge or framing of charge in criminal trial, the term 'prima facie case' means that allegation brought against the accused from the statements and documents relied upon by the prosecution if remains unchallenged and un rebutted then such evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction for that offence of which charge is proposed to be framed. Evidence in the case diary referred by the trial court satisfies that test to show existence of a prima facie case u/s 307 I.P.C. Section 307 I.P.C. provides punishment for offence of attempt to murder. The language in Section 307 I.P.C. makes it clear that the required ingredients are: (1) that the death of a human being was attempted; (2) that such death was attempted to be caused, by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused; (3) (a) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; (b) or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury, which the accused knew to be likely to cause death or is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability to cause (i) death (ii) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 11. 11. Therefore, to put it in a simple manner, it can be said that if the attempt of the assailant would have been fruitful or if he would have succeeded in his attempt then the victim would have met with death or such bodily inury which is likely or sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, for framing a charge u/s 307 I.P.C. existence of a grievous hurt is not a condition precedent. Even without an injury on the body of the victim a charge for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. can be framed if the facts and circumstances in the case would lead to such intention coupled with the attemps to commit murder. For example- If the. offender fires from a gun with an intention/motive to kill the victim and the latter remains unhurt because of the bullet missing the target that is a clear case of attempt to murder and charge is bound to be framed for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. Similar example can be given relating to dealing of blow by a dangerous weapon like sword or katti with intention to attempt to murder but the victim escaping the same either due to intervention of others or by dodging the blow or for some other reasons. In all such cases, if the intention of the offender is to attempt to kill the victim and that is readable from the statements of the victim and witnesses to occurrence if any, then a charge can be framed for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. In the case at hand, allegation of making a declaration to kill, and thereafter dealing blow by a sharp cutting weapon aiming at head and neck, even if did not cause any grievous injury but that circumstance is sufficient to know the motive and the intention of the accused so as to frame charge for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. At the stage of framing of charge, trial court is posted with the version available from the side of the prosecution and according to the provision of law such evidence is only to be perused to consider as to whether a charge should be framed and if so for what offence or offences. On the other hand, at the stage of trial, Court is to go into the evidence on record produced during the trial and to consider from such evidence whether a case of intention to kill is proved, not proved or disproved and accordingly to decide the case. For that reason the Apex Court has said that manner of consideration of fact at the stage of framing of charge and deciding a case on conclusion of the trial requires different approach. 12. As noted above, opinion of the trial court in this case sufficiently justifies framing of charge for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. Factual finding of the court below (as quoted in paragraph 6 of this order) has not been stated to be untrue or perverse. Thus while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, in the absence of any illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Revision is not admitted and stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed