JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri ganganagar whereby the learned Judge has framed charges for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C. read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that on 21.8.2007 at about 8.00 P.M., while Kashmir Singh was going to his Dhani, near Govt. Hospital, the petitioners armed with gun, gandasi and lathi etc., stopped and assaulted him. It has been further alleged that Gurdeep Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on his head. Thereafter, he became unconscious. After a thorough investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners, by order dated 6.9.2012 as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Pradeep Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to Kashmir Singh, he was attacked with Gandasi on the back side of his head. Yet according to the injury report he has suffered a lacerated wound of merely 1 cm x 3A cm on the back side of the head. The said injury, according to the report, was caused by a blunt weapon. Moreover, according to the radiological report, the skull has not suffered any fracture. In fact, there was no fracture on the skull. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in framing the charges for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order and examined the record submitted by the learned counsel. 5. In the case of Shankar Agarml v. State of Rajasthan, 2011(1) WLC 610 , this Court had opined 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". 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. 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. It further held as under : There is a clear cut distinction between Section 323 I.P.C., and Section 324 I.P.C., on the one hand, and Section 307 I.P.C., on the other hand. While Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. do not use the words "under such circumstances", Section 307 I.P.C. emphatically uses these words. Naturally, these words would refer to firstly the setting of the crime, the scene of the crime, the time of offence was committed, the type of weapon used by the assailant(s), the number of assailants, the nature of injury suffered by the victim, the background of the case, if any. It is these circumstances, which would clearly demarcate whether the case falls under Section 323, or Section 324, or Section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, the intention and knowledge warranted under Section 307 I.P.C. is to be discovered from "the circumstances of the case". It is these circumstances, which would clearly demarcate whether the case falls under Section 323, or Section 324, or Section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, the intention and knowledge warranted under Section 307 I.P.C. is to be discovered from "the circumstances of the case". If the circumstances of the case do not make out that the intention or knowledge was to cause the death of a person, then obviously the case would fall under Section 323 or 324 I.P.C. However, if the circumstances of the case are so glaring as to clearly reveal that the intention or the knowledge was to cause the death of a person, then causing of "the hurt" would bring the offence under the ambit of Section 307 I.P.C. Merely because the element of "hurt" is common to offences under Sections 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C., it cannot lead to the confusion between the three different provisions. 6. A bare perusal of the Section 307 clearly reveals that according to the illustration 'C it is immaterial if an injury has been caused or not. Even if an injury has not been caused but the intention to commit murder is apparent, even then a charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be framed. 7. In the present case, according to the injury report Kashmir Singh has suffered five injuries on his head. According to the statements recorded by the police, he had been assaulted with Gandasi, a share-edged weapon, he further claims that others were armed with lathis which is a blunt weapons. Therefore, considering the nature 6f injuries, considering the placement of the injuries, a vital part of the body, the intention to attempt to kill him is rather obvious. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge was justified in framing the charges for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******