JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.RC. has been preferred by the complainant petitioner challenging the order dated 26.6.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur refusing to frame charge under Section 307 IPC against the respondents. 2. The complainant petitioner lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 5.4.96 at about 7.00 PM he along with his cousin Hukam Singh was going to his village by a Bus. Both got down from the bus at Bus-stand Gadhi arid immediately on their proceedings towards village, the accused respondents Kaptan Singh, his son Autar Singh and 3-4 other persons who were already present there in a Jeep, duly armed with revolver and 'kattas' appeared there and on seeing the complainant, accused Kaptan Singh and Autar Singh opened fire at him with an him with an intention to kill him. Other accused persons fired by 'Kattas', which hit Santosh Singh S/o Hukam Singh. It was alleged that in all shots were fired. 3. On the above report, police completed investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused respondents for offence under Section 147, 149, 323 and 324 and 307 IPC. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it did not find any evidence or material so as to enable it to frame charge under Section 307 IPC and having found that it is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, sent the case u/s 228 (1) Cr.P.C. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur for holding trial, vide its order dated 26.6.99. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order refusing to frame charge under Section 307 IPC, the complainant petitioner has filed this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the evidence and material on record. 6. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction between act of the accused and its result. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court is required to see is whether the act done by a person was with the circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court is required to see is whether the act done by a person was with the circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. Having glanced at the X-ray reports, it is evident that there were multiple radio-opaque shadows on the left arm, right arm and face of injure Santosh. Similarly, radio opaque shadows on skull and fracture of proximal and of 5th metacarpal of injured Pooran were found. Therefore, it appears to me that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration the intention or knowledge of the accused respondents in the light of the evidence collected during investigation, more particularly the injury reports and X-ray reports. 7. I have also gone through the decision of this court reported in 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 381 relied upon by the trial court. In this case, the accused alleged to have used the fire arm using explosives in causing simple injuries and the court observed that causing of injuries voluntarily by instrument for shooting, being a fire arm or by means of any explosive substance is squarely covered by Section 324 IPC. In the case at hand, from the evidence collected during investigation, it appears that gun shot injuries viz., radio opaque shadows on vital parts of the body were found on the persons of injured. Thus the case relied upon by the trial court is not applicable to be facts and circumstances of the present case. It cannot also be said at this stage as to what would be the ultimate result. It is for the trial court to find out on the basis of the circumstances mentioned in section 307 IPC. Having glanced at the X-ray reports, it is evident that there were multiple radio-opaque shadows on the left arm, right arm and face of injured Santosh. Similarly, radio opaque shadows on skull and fracture of proximal end of 5th metacarpal on head of injured Pooran were found. Therefore, it appears to me that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration the intention or knowledge of the accused respondents in the light of the evidence collected during investigation more particularly the injury reports and X-ray reports. 8. Therefore, it appears to me that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration the intention or knowledge of the accused respondents in the light of the evidence collected during investigation more particularly the injury reports and X-ray reports. 8. I have also gone through the decision of this court reported in 1998 Cr.L.R (Raj.) 381 relied upon by the trial court. In this case, the accused alleged to have used the fire arm using explosives in causing simple injuries and the court observed that causing of injuries voluntarily by instrument for shooting, being a fire arm or by means of any explosive substance is squarely covered by Section 324 IPC. In the case at hand, from the evidence collected during investigation, it appears that gun shot injuries viz., radio opaque shadows on vital parts of the body were found on the persons of injured. Thus the case relied upon by the trial court is not applicable to be facts and circumstances of the present case. It cannot also be said at this stage as to what would be the ultimate result. It is for the trial court to find out on the basis of evidence adduced and the material produced during trial of the case, as to what offence the accused has committed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned in this revision petition is liable to be set aside. 10. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur is directed to examine whether the act done by the accused respondents was with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC, in the light of the evidence and material collected during trial of the case and placed before it and then to pass a fresh order, without being prejudiced to what has been observed in this order.Revision Petition allowed. *******