JUDGMENT 1. - The Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 50/2007 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 307, 307/149, 323 and 323/149 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a First Information Report no. 125/2007 was registered at P.S. Rawla on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of one Chandra Bhan recorded at P.H.C. Rawla on 7.7.2007 wherein the injured alleged that enmity was existing between himself and the family of Bhajan Lal and Surendra Punia since a long time. He further alleged that in the morning he had left his house for dropping his relative Rameshwar Lal to the bus stand. At about 6.30 in the morning they reached the shop of Mahavir Godara and sat down for reading the news paper. A little while later, Dharampal and Suresh came near the complainant on a motor cycle and implored him that he was glaring at them. On this the complainant replied that he was simply reading the news paper. Dharmpal and Suresh went away and soon after accompanied with Amarchand, Vinod, Bhajanlal and Gopi Ram came back. They were armed with Lathis, Gandasi and guns. They started exhorting that the complainant should be killed. He ran into the shop of Mahavir to save himself. Nima also came there. Mahavir and Nima tried to prevent the accused from entering into the shop but they forced entry into the shop. The complainant was forcibly pulled out of the shop and was assaulted mercilessly by Lathi. The complainant's relative Rameshwar Lal tried to intervene for saving him but he was also beaten mercilessly. it was alleged that as a result of beating the complainant and Rameshwar Lal fell down. At that time Mahavir, Mehar Chand and Fateh Chand intervened. it was alleged that Dharampal made 2-3 gun fires on the complainant as well as Rameshwar Lal due to which Rameshwar Lal received gun injury on his legs. Thereafter the relatives brought the complainant to hospital who stated that seeing him along (alone?) family members of Bhajan Lal assailed him with the intention to kill. it was alleged that Dharampal made 2-3 gun fires on the complainant as well as Rameshwar Lal due to which Rameshwar Lal received gun injury on his legs. Thereafter the relatives brought the complainant to hospital who stated that seeing him along (alone?) family members of Bhajan Lal assailed him with the intention to kill. On the basis of this report, a case under Section 307, 341, 323 and 143 I.P.C. as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The site inspection of the scene of occurrence was conducted but no marks of any gun firing etc. were found. The injuries of Rameshwar Lal as well as the complainant were examined. Rameshwar Lal was having four external injuries on his body one being a simple lacerated wound on the left parietal region, one being a round oval shape wound with redness and was found to be skin deep. He was having an abrasion on the leg and a lacerated wound on the right heel. The Injury no. 2 was suspected to be firearm injury. Chandra Bhan was having five simple injuries on his person. On X-ray a small Radio Opaque rounded shadow was found in the heel of right foot of Rameshwarlal. On the basis of the said Injury report and after completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307, 323, 341 and 143 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Anoopgarh and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the order dated 11.1.2008 proceeded to frame charges against the accused as stated above. The petitioners have now approached this Court by way of instant revision assailing the order framing charges against them. 3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even If the allegations of the prosecution are ex facie accepted to be true at their highest, then also the acts of the accused cannot be said to be constituting an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that in the statement of the independent witness Nima who is owner of the shop it has been specifically mentioned that no gun shot was fired at the time of incident. Learned counsel submits that the order framing charge for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 4. Learned counsel submits that the order framing charge for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, he contends that the petitioners attacked the injured while they were sitting at the shop of Mahavir and Nima Devi waiting for bus. He urged that the accused have caused injuries by firearm to the inured, and therefore, it could be definitely inferred that the accused intended to commit the murder of the injured. Thus, the learned RR submitted the the order framing charges does not call for any interference. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 6. The only bone of contention in the matter is that as to whether by the alleged act of firing the gunshots by the accused towards the complainant party a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. can be framed against them. it is not in dispute that the enmity is claimed to be existing between the accused and the injured Chandrabhan. Chandrabhan has received some simple superfluous injuries in the incident. Rameshwar Lal is the person who is said to have received a firearm injury in the incident. The injury has been found to be existing on the heel of his foot and appears to be a solitary pellet wound. Thai apart, the said injury has not resulted into any bony injury to Rameshwar Lal Thus, the injury can be described to be a simple injury caused by a dangerous weapon. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the charge which has been framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. in this case does not appear to be justified by any stretch of imagination. At best the offence if any which has been committed by the accused can travel to Section 324 of the I.P.C., as the accused have voluntarily caused hurt to the injured by an instrument of shooting. From a perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it becomes apparent that the trial court has not framed a charge under the Arms Act against the accused. Undisputedly one of the accused is alleged to have used a firearm for causing injury to the injured. From a perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it becomes apparent that the trial court has not framed a charge under the Arms Act against the accused. Undisputedly one of the accused is alleged to have used a firearm for causing injury to the injured. Therefore, the trial court has to be directed to consider the question of framing charge against the accused for the offence under the Arms Act. 7. Resultantly, the revision succeeds in part. Whilst upholding the order Impugned for the remaining charges framed against the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and 307/149 is quashed and Instead the trial court is directed to frame a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 324 and 324/149 I.P.C. The trial court shall also consider the question of framing charge against the accused for the relevant offence under the provisions of the Arms Act after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties/record be sent back forthwith.Revision partly allowed. *******