Order Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. By this revision, the applicants challenged framing of charges under Section 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the background in which the incident happened and the contents of FIR as also the case diary statements only show that the applicants were trying to run away in a vehicle from the spot and in that process, even if there was likelihood of vehicle being run over the police official or attempt was made to dash against the police official who was trying to stop the vehicle, it is not prima facie made out that the applicant had any intention to murder the police official. He submits that infact, the applicants were trying to run away and the police officer clung on the vehicle of the applicant and was dragged to some distance as stated in the diary statement. Therefore, this only shows that the applicants were trying to run away from the spot as according to the prosecution, the applicants were found on the spot where police team had arrived on the information of theft of oil from oil tanker. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Suresh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. with State of U.P. Vs. Pavitri Devi, AIR 2001 SC 1344 , Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 1929 , Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1808 . It is submitted that in order to make out a case under Section 307 of IPC, the evidence must disclose that the accused had intention to murder. Only because certain injuries have been caused or while running away avoiding police officers, the police officers could be run over and died, prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. 2. The FIR has been lodged by a Head Constable - Shivprasad Dubey who has stated in the FIR as well as in the case diary statement that when the police team, upon receipt of information regarding theft of oil from the oil tanker, reached at the spot, the applicants were sitting in a car. When attempt was made to apprehend them, one of the applicants started the car, another police constable Mahavir was standing on the road. When attempt was made to apprehend them, one of the applicants started the car, another police constable Mahavir was standing on the road. An attempt was made to run the vehicle over him with a great speed and if Mahavir Yadav would not have saved him by jumping sidewards, he would have been killed. The said constable caught hold the steering of the vehicle but the applicants did not stop the vehicle and Mahavir Yadav was dragged. In the circumstances Mahavir Yadav sustained injuries on various parts of the body. He has stated that the applicants made all attempts to kill Mahavir Yadav. 3. In view of the above/contents of FIR and diary statements, prima facie case of proceeding against the applicants is made out for alleged commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. It would ultimately depend upon the nature and quality of evidence that may be collected during trial, whether a case of commission of offence under Section 306IPC is made out or not. At this stage, the over act alleged to have been committed by the applicants and the circumstances in which the offence has been committed and the statement of Mahavir Yadav and Shivprasad Dubey, a prima facie case is made out. At the stage of framing of charges, what is required to be seen is as to whether there is sufficient ground of proceedings and not whether a case of conviction is made out. [Please see State of Madhva Pradesh Vs. S.B. Johri and others 2000 (1) Jabalpur Law Journal 12, Niranian Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhim Raj Bijiaya and others, 1990 4 SCC 76 and Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 11 SCC 476 .] The petition has no merit and is therefore dismissed.