JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar in sessions case No. 108/2006 (127/2006) whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 148, 341, 307 and in the alternative Section 307 read with Sections 149, 325 and in the alternative Section 325 read with Sections 149, 323 and in the alternative Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the material available on the record. 3. The only grievance of learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the framing of charge under Section 307 and in the alternative Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. He has contended that it is doubtful that the injured Avdhesh suffered any fracture on his left temporal bone and that the other grievous injury is a fracture on left zygomatic bone and since the injuries are not sufficient to cause death and not even dangerous to life, therefore, the charge under Section 307 and in the alternative under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. He has placed reliance on 2007 Criminal Law Report (SC) 174, 580, 629. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned order. 5. The injured Avdhesh has suffered as many as 14 injuries including a fracture of left zygomatic bone and a fracture of left temporal bone. The prosecution will be able to prove these injuries or not is not relevant at this stage because the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at this stage. 6. To justify a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should be 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. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be dangerous to life or 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 the circumstances mentioned in the Section. 7. Learned trial Court has passed the order under challenge in detail and has recorded reasons for framing charge under Section 307 and in the alternative under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find no ground as a revisional Court to interfere in the impugned order. 8. The revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. 9. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. 9. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.Revision petition dismissed. *******