ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. None for applicants to prosecute this revision petition. Shri Jaideep singh, Dy. Government Advocate, for respondent/State, on advance Copy. 1. On the earlier date of hearing i.e. 3-2-2005 no one had appeared on behalf of applicants and even today also the applicants are unrepresented. Whenever the concerning counsel is not ready and willing to appear in the Court by giving his presence also then there is no other way except to peruse the record and impugned judgment and pass an appropriate order with the assistance of learned Government Advocate. Cri. Rev. No. 1950 of 2004 decided on 23-2-2005. (Jabalpur) 2. I have considered the circumstances of the present revision by perusing the impugned judgment and papers placed on record. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 7-12-2004, passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (Fast Track Court) in S. T. No. 683/04 whereby direction for framing the charges under section 307 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of it the charges are levelled. 4. As per the F.I.R. and the case diary statement recorded during interrogation by Investigating Officer apparently reflects the intention of the alleged accused who are the applicants in the instant revision. At the stage of framing of charges only the injuries caused to the victim are not the criteria but the other circumstances in which intention or motive should also be considered and as per papers of charge-sheet the motive and intention is very apparent. These are the sufficient circumstances for framing the charges under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 5. My abovesaid view is fully supported by a reported case of Apex Court in the case of R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka reported in (2004) 9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCW 815, in which it is held as under: 8. Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt with relates to the applicability of section 307, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the eye witnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save PW 3 from being assaulted by the appellant A-l, but he continued to assault PW 3. The first blow was on a vital part, this is, on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigors of section 307, Indian Penal Code. The first blow was on a vital part, this is, on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigors of section 307, Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, the appellant continued to assault PW 3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant A-l. 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 section makes a distinction between the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under section 307, Indian Penal Code merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity or illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned which can be levelled error of jurisdiction committed by the trial Court. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.