Hon'ble KAUR, J.—This is a revision petition under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Original Case No.40/2012, vide which, charges were framed aginst the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 427, 307 read with 149 IPC. 2. An FIR No.106/2012 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Siwana for the abovementioned sections. The matter was investigated. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and the charges under the abovementioned sections were framed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order framing charge under Sec. 307 IPC. 3. While praying for quashing of the charge under Section 307 IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the injuries were simple in nature. Hence, no offence under Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. Secondly, as per the allegation, a number of persons have attacked the complainant and the injured with deadly weapons. In spite of the same, the complainant and the injured received only simple injuries. In case, the petitioners had intention to kill, the injuries would have been grievous. It was further contended that there is no opinion of the doctor that any of the injuries were dangerous to life. Lastly, there is nothing on record which suggests that the petitioner continued to inflict injury after the injured fell on the ground. It reveals that there was no intention to kill. Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Raja @ Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1984 and Jani Devi (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Harish Kumar, reported in 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2119 to substantiate the argument that in case the injuries are simple, no offence under Sec.307 IPC can be said to be made out. It was further argued that the trial court did not record any finding that the petitioners were likely to be convicted on the basis of the evidence. No evidence was gone into. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor however, has submitted that prima facie case has to be seen for framing of charge. Hence, there was no ground to interfere in the order framing charge. Heard. 6. No evidence was gone into. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor however, has submitted that prima facie case has to be seen for framing of charge. Hence, there was no ground to interfere in the order framing charge. Heard. 6. The story of the prosecution is that on 9.7.2012 at 10.30 pm, when one Parasmal S/o Punja Ram along with Narendra Kumar Soni were going in a Alto Car, at that time, petitioner and other co-accused who were hiding behind the trees in their own car, came forward and stopped the way of Parasmal and Narendra Kumar by parking their car in front of the car of Parasmal and Narendra Kumar. Parasmal and Narendra Kumar were pulled out from the car and petitioners started hitting them with their respective weapons. As per the allegations in the FIR, Major Singh tried to kill Narendra Singh by hitting him with his sword. As a result, Narendra Kumar was hit on the head and blood started oozing out. Narendra Kumar was thrown down on the floor and they continued to beat Parasmal with Lathies and sword. Narendra Kumar and Parasmal started shouting to save them. On hearing their shouts, Dharmendra and his brother Amba Ram came running there. They rescued the injured from the hands of the petitioners. It is further alleged that if they had not been rescued, they would have been killed by them. Their car was also damaged in the process. It was further alleged that the petitioner was the principal offender who tried to inflict sword injury on the head of the injured Narendra Kumar who raised his hand and thus, a sword injury was inflicted on the palm of Narendra Kumar. 7. It is, therefore, evident that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Various injuries were found on the person of Narendra Kumar which are as under:- 1. Laceration 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, left Temporal Lobe, O/R, blunt 2. Laceration 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, Left side of Frontal Lobe, O/R, blunt 3. Laceration 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, Parito Occipital region central Part, O/R, blunt 4. Laceration 2cmx1cmx0.5 cm, Left ear mastoid region, simple, blunt 5. Laceration 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, upper lip, simple, blunt 6. cut inside 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, Left palm, simple, sharp 7. Laceration 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, Parito Occipital region central Part, O/R, blunt 4. Laceration 2cmx1cmx0.5 cm, Left ear mastoid region, simple, blunt 5. Laceration 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, upper lip, simple, blunt 6. cut inside 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, Left palm, simple, sharp 7. Blood coming & both nortrils were filled with blood. 8. The injuries found on the person of Parasmal are as under:- 1. C/o. Pain & swelling in Rt. Wrist joint, simple, blunt. 2. C/o. Pain & swelling in Left side of middle finger, simple, blunt. 9. In order to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, intention or knowledge with which the action was committed is to be seen irrespective of the result. 10. No doubt the said injuries are found to be simple in nature. However, for an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury should be grievous or that the said injury should be capable of causing death or should be dangerous to life. Only, the intention has to be seen. Section 307 IPC reads as under:- 307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprison-ment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—(When any person offending under this section is under sentence of (imprisonment for life), he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.) 11. The Bombay High Court in the case of Vasant Virthu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 held in no uncertain terms that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would depend on the facts of a particular case. 12. Similar view has also been held in the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ansarudin vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP). 13. It would depend on the facts of a particular case. 12. Similar view has also been held in the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ansarudin vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP). 13. In the present case, as per the allegations, as many as 14-15 persons armed with deadly weapons had attacked the complainant and another peson. They continued to hit them till such time, they were rescued. On the basis of the investigation and evidence collected, challan has been filed and charges have been framed. It is a matter of evidence to be led during trial as to whether there was any intention to kill or not. Prima facie an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out in the circumstances. At the time of framing of charges, all that has to be seen is whether prima facie case is made out or not. 14. In the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Kunj Behari and others reported as 1989 Supp (2) SCC 572, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in going into meticulous consideration of evidence and appreciate documents and statements filed by the police at the stage of framing of charge and went on to held in para 9 that : “9. The High Court has also deemed it necessary to quash the charge against respondents No.1 to 3 because in its opinion the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution, even if fully accepted, cannot show that respondents No.1 to 3 committed any offence and referred in that behalf to the decision in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh. We find that the High Court's conclusion about the inadequacy of the evidence against respondents No.1 to 3, besides being a premature assessment of evidence, is also attributable to the wrong premises on which the High Court's reasoning is based.” 15. Similarly, in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4) CRC (Cri.) 640 in paras 10 and 11, it is held: “10. Similarly, in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4) CRC (Cri.) 640 in paras 10 and 11, it is held: “10. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the differences there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the Court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied.” 11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.” 16. At the stage of framing of charge, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about prospect of conviction. The said distinction has been clearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2209) 2 SCC 696. 17. Moreover, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa etc. reported as 1996(2) R.C.R. (Cri.) 480, has very clearly held that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prose-cution has to be accepted as true at that stage and held in para 33 as under :- “33. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 18. Similar view was also held by the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo reported as 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 324, while laying down the guidelines at the time of framing of charge, held in para 15 as under :- “15. It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan(Smt.) vs. Jawahar Lal and others, ( 1992(3) SCC 317 ),it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.” 19. Applying the test in the present case, the allegations are clear. The present petitioner had attacked the injured with deadly weapons. The injured received both blunt and sharp injuries. It is a settled proposition of law that the intention and not the injury is to be seen while determining the offence under Section 307 IPC. Applying the test in the present case, the allegations are clear. The present petitioner had attacked the injured with deadly weapons. The injured received both blunt and sharp injuries. It is a settled proposition of law that the intention and not the injury is to be seen while determining the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the injuries were simple and there is no finding that the said injuries were dangerous to life, has no merit. As such, no ground to set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balotra in Cr. Case No.40/2012 is made out. 20. In view of the above, the present criminal revision petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.