JUDGMENT : Manmohan, J.:— (Oral) 1. Present revision petition has been filed against the order framing Charge under Section 307of Indian Penal Code on the ground that no X-ray report has been filed, no cartridge has been seized and injury caused to the complainant is superficial. 2. Mr. R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no corroborative medical evidence to show that the complainant had suffered any injury. He further submits that on the evidence on record, no conviction is possible. In this connection, he relies upon a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1998 Crl. L.J. 3131(Rajasthan) wherein it has been held as under:- “15. The learned trial Judge superficially considered the material and documentary evidence for the purposes of framing charges and, consequently, the material and documents relied upon by the prosecution, intrinsically and on its face, when considered in its right perspective in the aforementioned circumstances, do not furnish sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused-persons for the alleged commission of offence of attempted murder, there cannot be any justification for still framing charge for alleged commission of attempted murder and, consequently, the impugned order cannot be held to be justified by the facts and circumstances as are borne out of the prosecution story.” 3. The Supreme Court in Som Chakravarty Vs. State Through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 while laying down the test for framing of charge, has held that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of Charge 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. Consequently, the petitioner’s argument that conviction is not possible on the evidence on record is irrelevant. 4. Further, the Supreme Court in Bappa alias Bapu Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 6 SCC 485 has held that Section 307 of IPC makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. Consequently, the petitioner’s argument that conviction is not possible on the evidence on record is irrelevant. 4. Further, the Supreme Court in Bappa alias Bapu Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 6 SCC 485 has held that Section 307 of IPC makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intent or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that Section. It was also held that an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act and it was sufficient in law, if there was present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 5. This Court is of the view that at the Charge stage, the Court is required to consider only prima facie evidence and that too, to the extent that if there was an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 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. Consequently, the petitioner’s argument that it was essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, is not correct. 6. Moreover, in the MLC record of the present case it is clearly mentioned that there was a gunshot injury and that the accused had suffered a lacerated wound. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no interference with the impugned order framing charge is called for. Accordingly, the present petition and application are dismissed. _____________