Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The State of Punjab has filed the present petition vide which it has challenged the order dated August 17, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the Court has declined to frame the charge under Section 3087, I.P.C., against the accused. 2. The occurrence took place on November 17, 1998. The case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Sections 149, 148 and 452, Indian Penal Code. The case was converted to an offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. At the time of framing of the charge, the plea taken by the Public Prosecutor was that an offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, was clearly made out against the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to accept the plea of the Public Prosecutor and held that no offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, was made out. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents. No one has put in appearance on their behalf. 4. It has been contended by Shri Shailender Malik, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that Gurmit Singh injured had received as many as eight injuries on his person and injury Nos. 1 & 5 were incised wounds and were grievous in nature. According to him, the nature and the number of the injuries suffered by Gurmit would show that the intention of the accused was to cause his death. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the State, prima facie a charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Harnek Singh alias Neka and others v. State of Punjab, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 422. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinion that an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the respondents. The accused were allegedly armed with Lathis, Gandasas and Kirch. There is also a Lalkara which was attributed to Jaswant Singh accused to the effect that Gurmit Singh be taught a lesson. Jaswinder Singh inflicted a Gandasa blow on the head of Gurmit Singh. Kirch blow was given on the right side of the back of the chest of Gurmit Singh. Head is a very vital part of the body of a person. Jaswinder Singh inflicted a Gandasa blow on the head of Gurmit Singh. Kirch blow was given on the right side of the back of the chest of Gurmit Singh. Head is a very vital part of the body of a person. Similarly, the Kirch blow on the back of the chest of Gurmit Singh could also have proved dangerous to his life. In Harnek Singhs case (supra) it has been held that for framing a charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that the injuries should be capable of causing death. The intention of the accused should be the prime consideration. 6. In the light of the above, I am of the view that prima facie the offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the accused. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated August 17, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, is set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to frame charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, against all the accused, and proceed in accordance with law. Nothing stated above, should be construed as an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. Revision allowed.