JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned PP on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. I have also perused the impugned order dated 16.2.2002 vide which the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City has directed framing of charges for the offences under sections 148 and 307 I.P.C. against petitioner Ramoutar @ Outar and under sections 148 and 307/149 I.PC. against other petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that charges as framed against them are un-sustainable in law in view of the materials on record. The injury attributed to the petitioner Ramoutar @ Outar is simple in nature by a sharp edged weapon and, therefore, no offence under section 307 or 307/149 I.P.C. can be said to be made out even prima facie. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Pukhraj v. State of Raj., 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 166 , Sheesh Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj., 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 761 , Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. State, 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 782 , Ram Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Raj. & anr., 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 381 , Girdhari & ant. v. State of Raj., 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 812 , Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RCC April 1987 Page 142 , Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 505 and Baburao Hair Panwar v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cr.L.J. 584 . 3. Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned PP have both supported the impugned order. They have submitted that the nature of injury is irrelevant at the stage of framing of charges if the intention of the accused otherwise appears prima facie to be to cause death of the victim. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record made available as well as the authorities cited at the bar.It is well settled proposition of law that where Injury is actually Inflicted, its locate and nature are Important factors to judge the Intention of the assailant and the assailants would be presumed to intent to cause the injury actually Inflicted by him. In the instant case, the alleged injury on the head of Mahesh Chand Saini, the complainant, is reported to be simple in nature though it is alleged to be inflicted by a sword. In the authorities cited by the earned counsel for the petitioners wherein in similar and Identical cases of simple injuries, this court has held that no offence under section 307 I.P.C. can be said to be even prima facie made out. If appears that these authorities were not Drought to the notice of learned court below. 5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order so far as it directs I framing of charges against the petitioner No. 1 for offence under section 307 I.P.C. and against other petitioners under section 307/149 I.P.C. is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside with the directions to the court below to pass a fresh order in the light of the these authorities and keeping in view the law laid down 5 therein. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun city is hereby set aside and it is directed that the learned court below shall pass fresh order with regard to amendment/alteration of charges after is hearing the par i s and in the light of the aforesaid authorities as also the materials on record in this case.Revision Allowed. *******