Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (in brief "the Code") by the present applicants against the order dated 12-10-04 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S. T. No. 273/04 whereby direction for framing the charges under Section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of the same the charges are framed against the present applicants. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 25-6-2003 at about 10. 30 in the morning when the complainant Ms. Nandini was at her residence alongwith her father Ramdas Sharma at the same time applicants came there with common intention to cause death of the complainant and her father and by saying that they will end of the life of the complainant and her father assaulted them by hard and sharp object "chhuri" and also by sticks whereby the complainant and her father have received so many injuries, then incident was reported immediately to Police, Harda at about 11. 00 a. m. where a Crime No. 242/03 was registered and charge-sheet was filed after holding investigation against the applicants. Both the injured complainants were examined by the doctor who prepared the M. L. C. also. On committal of the case, above said charges were framed against the applicants by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. ( 3. ) COUNSEL of the appellant submitted that if the papers of charge-sheet are evaluated at the initial stage of charges then ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made out. He supported his contention on the basis of M. L. C. report of said complainant and Ramdas and also referred the reply of Doctor regarding queries made by the Investigating Officer in which it was stated that no injury was found on the body of complainant and her father which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature and, in view of this, charges of Section 307 of IPC is liable to be struck down by converting the section of the IPC triable by the Judicial Magistrate only. ( 4. ) IN support of his contention he also submitted a decided case, 1985 W. N. 262, Ajay Singh v. State of M. P. ( 5. ( 4. ) IN support of his contention he also submitted a decided case, 1985 W. N. 262, Ajay Singh v. State of M. P. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, Counsel of the State has supported the impugned order and justified it and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. ( 6. ) ON perusal of the impugned order and entire papers of the charge-sheet, I am of the considered view that the contention of the applicant can not be considered at this stage and, thus, this revision petitioner deserves to be dismissed. ( 7. ) ACCORDING to FIR and the case diary statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of IPC during the investigation it is quite clear that the scenario of the incident and the implements which had been used by the applicants to cause injuries shows their intention to cause death of complainant and her father. ( 8. ) THE intention is very relevant thing at the stage of framing of charges and if the intention is apparent then the charges can be framed against concerning assailants. ( 9. ) MY above said view is fully supported by a case decided by the Apex Court R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, 2004 AIR SCW 815, in which it is held :- "8. Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt with relates to the applicability of Section 307, IPC. The evidence of the eye-witnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save P. W. 3 from being assaulted by the appellant (A-1), but he continued to assault P. W. 3. The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307, IPC. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault P. W. 3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant (A-1 ). 9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant (A-1 ). 9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The sections make a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307, IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. " In view of the above said, I have not found any perversity, irregularity or illegality or anything against the propriety of law in the impugned order which can be leveled as an error of jurisdiction committed by the Trial Court. Therefore, this revision petition being devoid any merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage.