ORDER : Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. This petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed assailing the order dated 7-4-2016 passed by second Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, district — Sagar whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 307, 294, 506-II and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution story, the injured Vikram Singh was going in his motorcycle towards his house, the accused Munna Rawat and his wife Smt. Pushpa Bai abused him. Pushpa Bai gave lathi blow on his back and the petitioner Munna with a view to kill Vikram Singh inflicted injury by axe on the head of Vikaram Singh. Vikram Singh fell from the motorcycle and tried to run towards the house of Dudhai and fell down and became unconscious. The accused went after him and inflicted injuries at the door of house of Dudhai. Pushpendra intervened and thereafter accused petitioner Munna left the place. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is strenuously argued that offence under section 307 is not made out for the reason that injuries are simple in nature and X-ray report does not show any bony injury and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order impugned and discharge of the applicant for offence under section 307 of the Indian Panel Code. 5. At the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the petition stating that injuries caused to Vikram Singh is on his right parietal occipital frontal temporal region caused by hard and sharp object as per the MLC report. Though there is no bony injury as per the X-ray report but the injured was hospitalised from 16-12-2013 to 23-12-2013. It is also stated that injuries received on the vital organ. Learned Deputy Government Advocate also referred to the query report submitted by Dr. Akshay Singh on 25-12-2013 whereby he has stated that the injured Vikram was brought to the hospital in serious condition. Therefore, there could not be definite opinion as regarding complications of head injuries as it reflects after 2-4 hours and without expert opinion nothing can be said about the condition of the patient. Akshay Singh on 25-12-2013 whereby he has stated that the injured Vikram was brought to the hospital in serious condition. Therefore, there could not be definite opinion as regarding complications of head injuries as it reflects after 2-4 hours and without expert opinion nothing can be said about the condition of the patient. He has referred the patient to Sagar for further treatment if proper treatment not received in time, it could have caused death. 6. The important question borne in mind for determination is whether offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not ? To determine whether an offence fall under section 307, Indian Penal Code, it is the intention and not the injury. In the case of Vasant Virthu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539, it has been held that “it is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. To attract the provision of section 307 it is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the act was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the result.” 7. Keeping in view the same this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.