JUDGMENT : (1) Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 13. 3. 2007, passed by additional sessions judge, gadarwara, in sessions trial no. 162/06, framing charges against applicants under sections 307, 294, 506, 323 and 324/34 of the indian penal code. (2) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the facts and evidence on record prima - facie no case for framing charge under section 307 of the indian penal code is made out. It cannot be said that merely because an air pistol was used for causing injury, it was necessarily a case under section 307 of the indian penal code. He submits that the facts lack to give inference about the intention of the applicant to commit murder of the injured, therefore, trial court committed error in framing charge under section 307 of the indian penal code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state, vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case particularly from the fact that a gun was used for causing the injury, prima - facie case for framing charge under section 307 of the indian penal code was made out. Trial court committed no error in framing the charge under section 307 of the indian penal code against the applicants. (3) According to prosecution, complainant bhura nauriya had borrowed rs. 2600/ - from bahadur pachauri. At about 6. 30 p. M. On 16. 7. 2006, he went at the shop of dharamraj agrawal and called bahadur pachaury for giving back his money. When bahadur pachauri came there with prakash dixit, halke, the elder brother of bhura gave money to bahadur. After receiving money, bahadur pachauri hurled filthy abuses to him saying as to why he called him there instead of coming to his house for giving money and assaulted him. In the meantime, accused dhananjay also reached there and both of them then assaulted him by fists and kicks. They took him towards the house of bahadur pachauri, where bahadur took out an air pistol and fired at him, as a result of which, he suffered a pellet injury on his left thigh. Bhura went to police station, saikheda and lodged the report. Police registered an offence under sections 294, 306, 323 and 324/34 of the indian penal code. Bhura was sent for medical examination. Bhura went to police station, saikheda and lodged the report. Police registered an offence under sections 294, 306, 323 and 324/34 of the indian penal code. Bhura was sent for medical examination. According to his injury report, he suffered two injuries; one was a penetrating injury on left lower 1/3rd of thigh on anterior part measuring 1x1/2x1 cm and second injury was a mild swelling on right eye. As per injury report, injuries were simple in nature. It was observed by the doctor that no smoke or smell from the wound was found. During the medical examination, a pellet was seized by the doctor and was handed over to police. Police sent the same for examination with a query as to whether the injuries found on the body of bhura could have been caused by a projectile of 32 bore and whether it could be dangerous to life. Doctor replied the query saying that "it was possible". Opinion of assistant armourer was also sought that the seized projectile was of 32 bore. However, no weapon was seized at the instance of accused/applicants. (4) On perusal of the first information report and statement of bhura recorded under section 161 of the code of criminal procedure, it is apparent that accused bahadur had fired an air pistol on his thigh. Other witnesses viz. Bhura, halke, baijanti bai, pappu @ rajendra kumar rajouriya, dhanraj, kinchu, dharamraj, bangdi, kamlesh, shri ramkesh , gauri shanker and chatrapal singh also stated that accused bahadur pachauri after abusing and beating bhura fired at him a pistol which hit at his thigh. (5) In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that in the circumstances of the case no offence under section 307 of the indian penal code is made out and, therefore, no charge under that section can be framed, the provisions of section 307 of the indian penal code may be adverted. (5) In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that in the circumstances of the case no offence under section 307 of the indian penal code is made out and, therefore, no charge under that section can be framed, the provisions of section 307 of the indian penal code may be adverted. To, which read as under: "attempt to murder: - whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. " Perusal of the above shows that the important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under section 307 of the indian penal code is made out or not, is the intention or knowledge. Besides, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. On a bare perusal of the statements of complainant bhura and other witnesses, it is seen that it was bhurra who had called bahadur from his house. Merely because bahadur felt aggrieved for being called at the shop of dharamraj, he assaulted bhura and took him to his house and fired a pistol on his thigh. Had the accused intended to commit murder of bhura, he would not have fired at his thigh. He could have fired on any vital part of his body. (6) Merely because the weapon of the offence was a gun, it cannot be necessarily held that accused had intention of committing murder. In bhagwan din and others v. State - air 1967 allahabad 580 it has been held that a person who causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting can be punished only under section 324 of the indian penal code provided the case is covered by all the ingredients of that offence as defined in the section and no other major offence is made out from the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that a firearm was used to cause injury to the victim is not necessary to bring the case under section 307 of the indian penal code. There can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause the death of the complainant merely because he used a firearm to cause him hurt. The intention of the accused person has to be established from either the nature of the act actually committed by him or from other surrounding circumstances. Where injury has actually been caused to the victim, the prosecution, while attempting to establish that the real intention of the accused was to cause an injury of the nature which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or was so imminently dangerous that it could cause death, had further to establish the intention or knowledge of the accused as contemplated in section 307 of the indian penal code. It is well established that if the intention or necessary knowledge to cause death was there, it is immaterial whether or not any hurt has been caused to the victim and the accused can be held liable for an offence under section 307 of the indian penal code even though no hurt was caused. (7) Similarly, in state of m. P. V. Ramsewak - 1995 (ii) m. P. Weekly notes 191 it was observed that the intention of the assailant is to be gathered from any circumstances including the utterances he made. When a gun shot is fired from a very close range and the injury is caused on the thigh, without any intervention of any person, then merely because there was gun fire, it cannot be presumed nor even suspected that the intention of the assailant was to cause death of the person receiving the injury. When a gun shot is fired from a very close range and the injury is caused on the thigh, without any intervention of any person, then merely because there was gun fire, it cannot be presumed nor even suspected that the intention of the assailant was to cause death of the person receiving the injury. (8) It is settled in union of india v. Prafulla kumar samal, air 1979 sc 366 " (1) that, the judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; (2) where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and he is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) that in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the code the judge which under the present code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post - office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. " (9) Examining the present case in the light of the above proposition, it is prima - facie found that after the scuffle and wordy quarrel accused bahadur pachauri fired pistol/air - pistol on the thigh of bhura. Injury was not dangerous to life. There was no outside interference, which could have prevented the accused persons from causing more serious dangerous injuries to him. Injury was not dangerous to life. There was no outside interference, which could have prevented the accused persons from causing more serious dangerous injuries to him. In fact, the two injuries found on the body of bhura were simple in nature. Since there appear no circumstance to suspect that the intention of the applicants/accused was to cause death of the injured, trial court was not justified in framing the charge under section 307 and 307/34 of the indian penal code against the applicants. (10) Learned counsel for the applicants has not advanced any argument with respect to other charges framed against the applicants. (11) In view of the above discussion, this revision is partly allowed. Impugned order of framing charge, so far as under section 307 and 307/34 of the indian penal code is concerned, is set aside. Charge under section 307 and 307/34 of the indian penal code is quashed. Trial court shall now proceed for the trial of other offences according to law. Revision partly allowed.