Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 29.07.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (for short, "the revisional Court" hereinafter), in Criminal Revision No. 14/1996 whereby the revision petition filed by Non-petitioner No. 2 against the order dated 15.03.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 823/95, was allowed and the order passed by the trial Court refusing to take cognizance for the offence under Section 307, IPC apart from other offences under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 and 326/34, IPC was set aside. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the Challan papers. 3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Karna Ram is the injured person who is said to have suffered as many as four injuries at the hands of petitioners. Injury No. 1 is on right parietal region of skull and incised wound by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.2 is also on right parietal bone of skull. On being examined by the Radiologist, the Injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature. In the opinion of the Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Jhab, District Jalore, the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and may be dangerous to life. Despite repeated injuries on the vital part of the body by Non-petitioner No. 2 i.e., on the skull and one of the injury was found to be grievous in nature on being examined by the Radiologist which resulted in fracture of right parietal bone of skull, the police did not file challan for the offence under Section 307, IPC apart from the other offences. The Non-petitioner No. 2 moved an application before the trial Court to take cognizance of offence under Section 307, IPC apart from other offences for which the trial Court took the cognizance. However, the trial Court refused to take cognizance for the offence under Section 307, IPC. It is relevant to note that in the instant case, apart from the fracture of right parietal bone of skull, the injured suffered fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs which is evident from the report of Radiologist dated 211.1995. However, the trial Court refused to take cognizance for the offence under Section 307, IPC. It is relevant to note that in the instant case, apart from the fracture of right parietal bone of skull, the injured suffered fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs which is evident from the report of Radiologist dated 211.1995. The complainant filed a revision petition before the revisional Court against the order of trial Court refusing to take cognizance for the offence under Section 307, IPC. The revisional Court by the order impugned allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 4. It is contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though the injury on the skull of Non-petitioner No. 2 caused by sharp edged weapon resulted in fracture of right parietal bone and was found to be a grievous in nature, but it was not opined by the Doctor that the injury is dangerous to life or is capable to cause death and therefore, according to learned Counsel, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and Public Prosecutor submit that repeated injuries have been caused to the Non-petitioner No. 2 on the vital part of his body i.e., skull and one of the injury on the skull was found to be grievous in nature and even according to Doctor who examined the injured, the injury may be dangerous to life. 6. Be that as it may, for constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. 7. In Girja Shankar vs. State of U.P., 2004 (2) JT 140 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court observed that for constituting an offence under Section 307, IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Apex Court further held as under:- "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. 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 an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section." 8. InSarju Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307, IPC. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Bama Patil and Ors., 1983 (2) SCC 28 , wherein the Honble Apex Court held as under:- " 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 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 merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." .9. 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 merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." .9. InBappa alias Bapu vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 4119 , the accused alongwith victim had gone to cinema to witness movie and were coming back by bicycle. Suddenly accused got down from bicycle, stabbed the victim on his stomach and back and pressed his neck. It was contended that keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained, the offence cannot be said to be one covered by Section 307, IPC. While affirming the conviction under Section 307, IPC, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ." It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC if there is present an intent couple 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 given 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 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. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof ." .10. In Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (9) SCC 31 , the accused opened fire from a gun from a very close range at victim when he was sleeping on a cot. The shot hit the springs of the cot. The bullet broke into pieces and three such pieces struck the victim. In Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (9) SCC 31 , the accused opened fire from a gun from a very close range at victim when he was sleeping on a cot. The shot hit the springs of the cot. The bullet broke into pieces and three such pieces struck the victim. Upholding the conviction under Section 307, IPC, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:- ." 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. The section makes 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." 11. InR. Prakash vs State of Karnataka, 2004 (9) SCC 27 , the Honble Supreme Court observed that intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof is sufficient for constituting an offence under Section 307, IPC. The Apex Court further held as under:- “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 death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often given 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 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.” 12. 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.” 12. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, for constituting an offence under Section 307, IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof . In the instant case, repeated injuries have been caused to Non-petitioner No. 2 injured, out of which two injuries were caused on the vital part of the body of the non-petitioner i.e., skull and one of which was found to be grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon and therefore, at this stage, prima-facie it cannot be said that the injuries caused by the petitioners were not with such intention or knowledge and under circumstances that if they by their act caused death, they would be guilty of murder. In the circumstances therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 13. The revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly