JUDGMENT 1. - The complainant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has discharged the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for offences under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 2.7.2005, Brahmanand submitted a written report at Police Station Khatoli, wherein he claimed that around 12 O'clock in the afternoon, he, his father, Ramchandra, and his brothers, Durgashankar and Heeralal, were working in their fields. At that time, Kalulal, Deendayal, Harishankar, Mahaveer, Hemraj, Kajod, Mahendra, Babulal, Kalyani Bai, came to their field arrived with weapons such as, sticks, gandasi, dhariya, kulhari. Kalulal assaulted the complainant with Dhariya on his head, Deendayal also hit him with gandasi on his head, Hemraj hit him with gandasi on his ear and Kajod hit him on his hand. He further claimed that his father, Ramchandra, was assaulted and he sustained three injuries on his head. He further claimed that his brother, Heeralal, was assaulted by Kalulal, Deendayal, Kajod, Mahendra with sticks, gandasi, dhariya. He further claimed that his brother, Durga Shankar, was assaulted by Kajod, Mahaveer with Dhariya. On the basis of this report, a formal F.I.R. F.I.R. No. 580/2004 was chalked out for offence under Sections 143, 307, 447, 323 I.P.C. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 3. However, vide order dated 27.1.2005, after hearing the arguments on the charge, the learned Judge discharged the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for offences under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciated the ambit and scope of Section 307-I.P.C. Section 307 can be divided into two parts. While the first part deals with the intention and knowledge for having caused any act which is likely to lead to death of the persons, the second part deals with where "hurt" is caused and the sentence is enhanced in the later part. Relying upon the illustration (c) given in Section 307 I.P.C. the learned counsel has further contended that for the purpose of Section 307 I.P.C., it is immaterial whether the injury has been caused or not. Relying upon the illustration (c) given in Section 307 I.P.C. the learned counsel has further contended that for the purpose of Section 307 I.P.C., it is immaterial whether the injury has been caused or not. Moreover, in case, "hurt" as defined under Section 319 I.P.C. has been caused, ipso facto, the case would fall within the ambit and scope of later part of Section 307 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, Brahmanand had suffered five injuries, out of which injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 4 was on the head. Similarly, Ramchandra had suffered five injuries and injury No. 4 was of grievous nature. Likewise, Heeralal had suffered four injuries out of which one of them was caused by a sharp edged weapon. According to the learned counsel, even if all these injuries were neither sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, nor were dangerous to life, even then "hurt" was caused. Thus, the case would fall within the ambit and scope of Section 307 I.P.C. The learned counsel has further contended that the learned Judge has to be alive to the circumstances in which the occurrence had occurred. According to the complainant, in broad day light, the accused respondent had come with lethal weapons, they had assaulted the complainant and his family members with sharp edged weapons that, too, on the vital parts of the body such as the head. Therefore, their intention to cause the death of the injured persons is writ large. Hence, the case does fall within the ambit and scope of Section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, the learned Judge has committed an illegality by discharging the accused respondents for offences under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Singh, the learned counsel for the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7, has vehemently contended that in order for the case to fall under Section 307 I.P.C. it is imperative that the injuries caused to the injured persons should be dangerous to life or should be sufficient in ordinary nature of course to cause death. However, in the present case, according to the medical evidence, while Brahmanand had suffered five injuries, four injuries are simple in nature. Similarly, Ramchandra had sustained five injuries, out of which four injuries were simple in nature. However, in the present case, according to the medical evidence, while Brahmanand had suffered five injuries, four injuries are simple in nature. Similarly, Ramchandra had sustained five injuries, out of which four injuries were simple in nature. Likewise, Heeralal had suffered four injuries, out of which three injuries were simple in nature. Similarly, Durga Shankar had suffered a single injury, which is simple in nature. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, none of these injuries are neither dangerous nor sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the case does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 307 I.P.C. Lastly, the accused respondents have already been tried for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. The trial is almost over. Therefore, the impugned order does not deserves to be interfered with. 6. In the case of Shankar Agarzval v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 2011 (2) Raj. 1104 , this Court has observed as under. Illustration (c) deals with the latter part of Section 307 I.P.C. The said illustration clearly makes a distinction between "preparation" and "attempt'. But most importantly, while the illustration uses the word "wounds" as a verb, it does not differentiate between an injury of "simple nature" or "grievous nature". All it requires that "hurt", as defined in Section 319 I.P.C. as merely causing pain, is sufficient to bring the case within the fold of Section 307 I.P.C. At the time of framing of a charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. what the Court is concerned about is to decipher if an act was committed with an intention or knowledge under such circumstances that by such an act death would be caused, or not? Interestingly, the said provision makes intention and knowledge as expressed through a failed act as punishable. For, even if the ultimate act is not achieved, even then the intention and knowledge, as manifested in the attempt, is punishable. Since the act of causing death i.e. murder is the most heinous offence, an act which reveals the intention and knowledge, through an act of attempt to cause death, is punishable under the law. For, even if the ultimate act is not achieved, even then the intention and knowledge, as manifested in the attempt, is punishable. Since the act of causing death i.e. murder is the most heinous offence, an act which reveals the intention and knowledge, through an act of attempt to cause death, is punishable under the law. Therefore, the said provision is divided into two parts: the first part, where no hurt has been caused by the act, for which the persons would be liable for imprisonment upto ten years; the second part, where "hurt" is caused, the accused person would be liable to a sentence upto life imprisonment. 7. According to the medical evidence, Brahmanand suffered five injuries and the injury No. 4 is on the head. Moreover, injury Nos. 1 and 2 have been caused by a sharp edged weapons. Similarly, Ramchandra has suffered five injuries, out of which injury No. 4 is grievous in nature. Heeralal had suffered four. injuries, and one of them is by a sharp edged weapon. Thus, obviously all these persons had suffered "hurt" as defined under Section 319 I.P.C. 8. The learned trial Court should be alive to the fact that according to the complainant, he and his relatives were attacked in broad day light by the accused respondents, who were carrying lethal weapons in their hands. He and his relatives were assaulted on vital parts of the body. Therefore, it is immaterial for the purpose of framing of the charge whether the injuries were dangerous or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not? In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that it is always better to frame the charge for a graver offence, although after the completion of trial, the person could be convicted for a lesser charge. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has committed an illegality by discharging the accused respondents for offences under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. Sufficient evidence does exist to prima facie make out a case for offence under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. 9. Therefore, this Court quashes and sets aside the order dated 27.1.2005 and directed the,-learned trial Court to frame the charge against the accused respondent 1.2 to 7 for offence under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C.Revision allowed. *******