JUDGMENT J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-original first informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 29th March, 2014 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat below Exhibit-13 in Criminal Revision Application No. 163 of 2013 by which the learned Judge rejected the Revision Application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the order dated 18th June, 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mangrol below Exhibit-59 in the Criminal Case No. 790 of 2006. 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:- 2.1. The applicant herein lodged the First Information Report being C.R. No. I-55 of 2006 at the Kosamba Police Station of the offence punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is his case that he is running a grocery shop in the name of "Guru Krupa". On 13th May, 2006, he was at his shop and at around 11.00 a.m. in the morning, he received a phone call from his mother that the respondent No. 2 herein had picked up a quarrel with Alkeshbhai in connection with parking of a motorcycle. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 inflicted injuries on the head of Alkeshbhai by hitting one blow with an equipment ordinarily used by farmers for wild cutting grass. While Alkesh was admitted to the hospital, the applicant herein proceeded to the Police Station to lodge a report in that regard. 3. On completion of the Investigation the Police filed charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 325, 504 and 502(2) of the Indian Penal Code. On charge-sheet being filed the same came to be culminated as the Criminal Case No. 790 of 2006. The charge was framed. The doctor who had treated the injured entered the box and gave his oral evidence. On completion of the deposition of the doctor, the applicant herein filed an application Exhibit-59 praying to add Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court after considering such application filed by the applicant thought fit to reject the same. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court the applicant filed a Revision Application which was also ordered to be rejected. 5. Being dissatisfied the applicant has come up with this application. 6. Mr. The trial Court after considering such application filed by the applicant thought fit to reject the same. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court the applicant filed a Revision Application which was also ordered to be rejected. 5. Being dissatisfied the applicant has come up with this application. 6. Mr. Shashikant Parmar, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured and the fact that the Doctor in his evidence has stated that the injury was grievous in nature the trial Court ought to have altered the charge by adding Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Parmar laid much emphasis on that part of the evidence of the doctor, wherein, he has deposed that the injured was admitted with a serious injury and was semiconscious. The injured was admitted on 13th May, 2006 and was discharged from the hospital on 16th May, 2006. The discharge card reveals the nature of the injury as under:- "Head injury" Small Subarchnoid hemorrhage with small contusion with small thin subdural haematoma in (Lt) franto parietal region." 7. In such circumstances, Mr. Parmar prays that the courts below committed a serious error and the charge under Sections 307and 326 should have been added. 8. This application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Kruti M. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-original accused. She submitted that the courts below committed no error not to speak of any error of law in rejecting the application filed by the applicant herein. She submitted that no interference is warranted in the facts of the case. 9. The learned APP appearing for the State also submitted that no error could be said to have been committed by the courts below in rejecting the applications. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the courts below committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 11. I am not impressed by the submissions canvassed on behalf of the applicant that since there was a heat injury, the accused intended to cause death. There can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause death, merely because he inflicted injury on the head. 11. I am not impressed by the submissions canvassed on behalf of the applicant that since there was a heat injury, the accused intended to cause death. There can be no presumption that the accused intended to cause death, merely because he inflicted injury on the head. The genesis of the occurrence, the nature of the injury and the other surrounding circumstances are required to be considered before the accused can be charged of the offence under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. To charge a person under Section 307 or Section 326 of Indian Penal Code it shall have to be shown as to what was the actual intention of the assailant and also as to what is the nature of the injury i.e. the extent of damage caused to the body or any organ thereof. In the absence of any evidence of existence of any fracture or any X-Ray report in support or evidence about examination of the injury by the Doctor would not be sufficient to declare the said injury to be dangerous to life. 12. I am of the view that no case is made out by the applicant warranting any interference in exercising my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. The trial Court shall proceed further with the trial in accordance with law.