JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. All the seven F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.495 of 2007 arising out of Agiaon Bazar P.S. Case no.43 of 2006 have preferred this application for the quashing of the order dated 18.8.2007 passed in the said Sessions Trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby the prayer for discharge of the petitioners from the offences punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. and to pass orders under Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C, has been rejected. 2. The aforesaid Agiaon Bazar P.S. Case was registered under Sections 144, 341, 323, 324 and 379 I.P.C.against the seven F.I.R. named accused on the basis of a written report submitted by one Raju Kumar Yadav, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2. The police after due investigation submitted a chargesheet for commission of offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 308, 379 and 504 I.P.C. and on the basis thereof the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 3. Before the Sessions Court, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein for discharging them from the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. and for transmitting the case to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C, as all the other offences were triable by a Magisterial Court. The plea of the petitioners did not find favour with the Sessions Court, who rejected the same by the impugned order. 4. Assailing the impugned order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from the allegations made in the written report as also from the injury reports of the injured, no case under Section 308 I.P.C. appears to have been made out, as the petitioners did not attempt to commit culpable homicide and most of the injuries found on the persons of the injured were either superficial, liable to be manufactured in collusion with the medical expert, or were simple in nature. It was further submitted that no material appeared to have been collected in course of investigation to indicate that the overt acts resorted to by the petitioner would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Grievance has also been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners of the learned Sessions Judge having passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without examining the materials brought on record by the prosecution under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 5. Grievance has also been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners of the learned Sessions Judge having passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without examining the materials brought on record by the prosecution under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 5. Admittedly, four persons, namely, Sanichari Devi, Raj Kumar, Sheo Nath Yadav and Radha Yadav are said to have sustained injuries at the occurrence. The injury reports of the injured have been appended to this application as Annexures 2 to 6. I have perused the injury reports , which have been appended as Annexures, and from the same it appears that although most of the injuries were simple in nature, but Radha Yadav, aged about 70 years, had sustained as many as four injuries, one of which was grievous in nature. 6. Section 308 I.P.C. postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature need not result in hurt, but it is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. 7. In the instant case, as per the allegations in the written report, the accused petitioners variously armed with bhala, danda etc. arrived and assaulted the members of the prosecution party causing injuries of various nature to the aforesaid four injured persons . When a number of blows were inflicted by the accused persons to the injured, an inference follows that the accused intended to cause death or at least intended to cause such injuries , as would in the ordinary course of nature result in his death and in my opinion would fall within the ambit of an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. 8. I have had the occasion to peruse the impugned order and find no apparent illegality therein. There being no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.