JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaur vide which the petitioners have been charged under section 341, 323, 324, 325 336 and 308 I.P.C. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. It is also contended that the weapons are shown to have been recovered after three months of the incident from the incident site. Whereas, as per the site plan, no incriminating material or object was available when the site plan was prepared. It is also contended that the injuries are all simple in nature and Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. Other limb of argument is that the charges under Section 120-B have not been framed and the common intention is missing. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on "Ram Kesh Maurya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant Prajapati, 2007 4 ADJ 418 ", "Mahesh and Ors vs. State of M.P., 1988 CrLJ 1565 " , "Mannoo Lal Yadav and Anr. vs. State of U.P., 1994 AWC 629 " and "Virendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 CrLR 1249 " 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the injured in his statement has specifically stated that when the injured was going from his house towards the Bada then the accused-petitioners armed with Barchi, Hockey, Stick and Bhala attacked the complainant. 5. It is contended that the complainant has received as many as seven injuries out of which two are incised wound on head which has been caused by sharp weapon. It is also contended that the petitioners had knowledge that death could be caused by their act as they have inflicted injuries on vital part of the body by a sharp weapon. 6. I have considered the contentions and have perused the injury report as well as the statement of the injured. 7. "Virendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr." was a case, where the injuries were found on right leg, left leg, upper arm and upper forearm. Three injuries were grievous in nature. Injuries were not on vital part of the body. The Court held that offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. 8. 7. "Virendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr." was a case, where the injuries were found on right leg, left leg, upper arm and upper forearm. Three injuries were grievous in nature. Injuries were not on vital part of the body. The Court held that offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. 8. In "Ram Kesh Maurya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant Prajapati", the injuries sustained were simple in nature. The injuries were on head but there was no fracture on the skull bone and as there was no x-ray report. It was presumed that the doctor did not consider it necessary to advise x-ray. The Court in those circumstances quashed the charges under Section 308 I.P.C. 9. In "Mahesh and Ors vs. State of M.P.", the Court held that in order to constitute a crime under section 307 I.P.C actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur. Hurt is not an ingredient of the said offence but in a given case its existence may assume importance. The Court in that case quashed the charges under Section 308 I.P.C. 10. In the present case in hand, the petitioners armed with weapons including sharp weapons attacked the injured while he was on his way from his house to the bada. As many as seven injuries were inflicted on the injured, two were on vital part of the body and were caused by sharp weapon. 11. For constituting offence under Section 308 I.P.C, if any act is done with intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that, if by that act death is caused the person causing the injury would be guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. At the stage of charges, the Court is required to consider the statement of the witnesses as well as the injury report, the part of the body where injury is caused as well as the weapon used for arriving at the just conclusion as to which offence is made out. 12. It is true that the Court has not charged the petitioners for offence under Section 120-B Cr.P.C. but the fact that all the petitioners armed with weapons attacked the injured and caused seven injuries to him including two injuries on head by sharp weapon. Framing of charges under Section 308 I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse. 13. 12. It is true that the Court has not charged the petitioners for offence under Section 120-B Cr.P.C. but the fact that all the petitioners armed with weapons attacked the injured and caused seven injuries to him including two injuries on head by sharp weapon. Framing of charges under Section 308 I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse. 13. The judgment cited by the petitioner on facts do not apply on the present case. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stand disposed of.