ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in Sessions Case No. 142/2005, whereby accused persons were discharged from the offence of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur, for trial of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 325, 324, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident was reported by the complainant to the police and offence was registered as Case No. 420/2004 against accused person under different sections but as section 307 of Indian Penal Code was not impleaded and the charge-sheet submitted by the police, so complainant filed a private complaint before the trial Magistrate who committed matter to the Court of Sessions for the trial of the accused persons under section 307 of Indian Penal Code also. 3. In the impugned order learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur after considering the nature of the evidence available and the injuries which were actually caused to the injured persons by the accused persons, came to the conclusion that prima facie there is no material to infer that injuries to complainant were caused with intent to cause his death. 4. Aggrieved by the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge the present petition has been filed. 5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and heard Shri Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The description of injuries which were found in the body of the injured persons given in the impugned order shows that there was an injury on the vital part of the body of the Ramchandra that too was a simple injury and other injuries were on the non-vital parts like femur, both legs and back. Another person Vardichand has also sustained injuries in the incident, was also having only one injury on vital part of his body. On the examination it was found that there was no fracture on the body of both the injured persons. 7. Learned Sessions Judge considering the nature of these injuries has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no intention of causing death of either Ramchand or Vardichand because most injuries were caused in non-vital parts of the body and the injuries found on the vital part of the' body were of simple nature. 8. 7. Learned Sessions Judge considering the nature of these injuries has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no intention of causing death of either Ramchand or Vardichand because most injuries were caused in non-vital parts of the body and the injuries found on the vital part of the' body were of simple nature. 8. Shri Saraswat learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment in the matter of Rappa @ Rapu v. State of Maharashtra and another [ (2004) 6 SCC 485 ], wherein it has held that: "The Court is to see whether the act in question, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in section 307, 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." 9. Shri Saraswat on the basis of above observation of the apex Court argued that in the present case also intention to cause death should have been inferred by learned Sessions Judge. But there is no force in the argument advanced by Shri Saraswat because it can very well be seen that as per the case of prosecution, while causing injury to injured persons every precaution was taken not to cause a injury in any vital part of the body of injured persons and single injury which was caused on the vital part was also caused with lesser force, so that these may not damage the head, therefore, in such circumstances the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that intention to cause death or knowledge that thereby the death might have been caused are missing. There is no irregularity or impropriety in conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore this revision petition has got no merits and is dismissed summarily at the motion hearing stage.