JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Narayan Prasad Agarwal @ Narayan Prasad Bhawania challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.19/11 of 2006 in not framing charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case arises out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 100 of 2004. 2. The factual scenario of the case as per the first information report submitted by one Sanjay Kumar Bhawania, brother of the petitioner before the Inspector in charge of Jharsuguda Police station is that out of enmity and previous grudge, the opp. party no.2 Raj Kishore Agarwal tried to kill the petitioner on 09.04.2004 by running over Maruti 800 Car as a result of which the petitioner sustained compound fracture of his leg and his face was dashed against the iron gate and he sustained bleeding injuries. It is further stated that on hearing the shout of the petitioner, the informant came out of the house and sided the petitioner quickly for which the opp. party no.2 could not run him down. It is further stated that earlier the opp. party no.2 had threatened to take away the life of the petitioner but the matter was not reported in the police station as it was amicably settled. It is further stated that the petitioner was shifted to the Government hospital. On the basis of the first information report, Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 100 of 2004 was registered under sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, examined the witnesses, verified the documents of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. OR-16-7211, obtained the injury report of the petitioner which showed that the injuries were grievous and simple in nature. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 27.07.2004 under sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the opp. party no.2 and accordingly, cognizance of such offences was taken. 3. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Addl. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 27.07.2004 under sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the opp. party no.2 and accordingly, cognizance of such offences was taken. 3. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No. 19/11 of 2006 came to hold that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses about the occurrence and the entire allegation does not reveal that there was any preparation made by the opp. party no.2 with intention to commit an offence of murder and since the opp. party no.2 run down the petitioner on his leg only and not on any vital part of the body, therefore, a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The learned trial Court framed charges against the opposite party no.2 under sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code and read over and explained the charges to the opp. party no.2 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was transferred to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda under section 228(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. for disposal in accordance with law. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has gone beyond the scope of framing of charge by deeply entering into the probative value of the materials on record. He was supposed to have taken the materials on its face value and to see whether the ingredients of the offences are made out or not. The learned counsel further submitted that since the F.I.R. was lodged under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was also submitted under such offence and the learned Magistrate being prima facie satisfied about the commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code took cognizance of such offence, there was no justification on the part of the learned trial Court to come to a different conclusion particularly at the stage of framing charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Onkar Nath Mishra -Vrs.-State reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 561. Mr. Suraj Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opp. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Onkar Nath Mishra -Vrs.-State reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 561. Mr. Suraj Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opp. party no.2 while supporting the impugned order contended that there was civil dispute between the parties for which there was strained relationship and the factual scenario indicates that there was no intention to commit the crime and there was no preparation at all and it was a mere case of accident which has been given the colour of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Law is well settled as held in case of Onkar Nath Mishra -Vrs.-State reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 561 as follows:- “11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” The statement of the injured-petitioner indicates that the opp. party no.2 is the brother of the petitioner but the opp. party no.2 had been adopted by late Srinivash Bhawania about forty years prior to the date of occurrence. It further appears that there is one Iron Gate at the entrance of the building which was used by the petitioner as well as the opp. party no.2 is the brother of the petitioner but the opp. party no.2 had been adopted by late Srinivash Bhawania about forty years prior to the date of occurrence. It further appears that there is one Iron Gate at the entrance of the building which was used by the petitioner as well as the opp. party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 was also using that grill gate for passing of his Maruti 800 car and there was previous ill feeling between the parties. The petitioner has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. when he came to the house and found the gate open, he tried to close the gate and at that point of time, the opposite party no.2 came driving his Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. OR-16-7211 and dashed it against the petitioner as a result of which he sustained fracture of his right leg, injuries on his head and also on left foot. When he fell down on the ground, the opposite party no.2 ran over the car on the right leg for which the petitioner shouted and hearing his shout, his wife, younger brother Susil, Sanjay and others rushed to the spot and they backed the vehicle and rescued the petitioner. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 backed the car and got it parked by the side of the road. The other statements available on record also corroborate the statement of the injured-petitioner. There is no dispute that immediately after the occurrence, the F.I.R. was lodged and the injured was sent to the hospital and some of the injuries sustained by the injured was found to be grievous in nature and some were simple in nature. 6. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with attempt to murder. For the purpose of constituting an attempt, the requirements of two ingredients are necessary. Firstly, the intention or the knowledge and secondly, the act done. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent and character of the injury or whether the injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudicating the culpability under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent and character of the injury or whether the injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudicating the culpability under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is duty of the Court to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The only requirement of attempt to murder is intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not necessary that the injury must be capable of causing death. The accused must do an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact, the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. 7. In the case in hand, prima facie materials available on record indicate that there was previous ill feeling between the parties and on the date of occurrence, while the petitioner was closing the gate, at that point of time the opposite party no.2 came driving in his Maruti 800 car and dashed the car against the petitioner as a result of which the right leg of the petitioner got fractured and he sustained bleeding injuries on his head and left foot. After the petitioner fell down on the ground, the opposite party no.2 ran over the vehicle on the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner shouted in pain for which his wife, younger brothers rushed to the spot and pushed the car back and rescued the petitioner and then the petitioner was shifted to the hospital. The previous enmity, the conduct of the opposite party no.2 at the spot, the surrounding circumstances, the manner in which the offence was committed and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured prima facie indicates the ommission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The previous enmity, the conduct of the opposite party no.2 at the spot, the surrounding circumstances, the manner in which the offence was committed and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured prima facie indicates the ommission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has held that the entire allegation does not reveal that there was any preparation made by the opposite party no.2 with intention to commit an offence of murder and if such an intention was there, finding the petitioner alone, the opposite party no.2 could have run him down not on his leg but on the vital part of his body. Law is well settled that intention can be inferred from the attending circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties and the intention may develop even during the course of an occurrence. Preparation to commit a crime is always done secretly and therefore, it is very difficult to find direct evidence in that respect. The conduct of the accused at the spot prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence is relevant for adjudicating whether he had intention to commit the crime or not. In this case when the gate was found open, the petitioner was closing the same. At that point of time, the opposite party no.2 arrived there in his car. There is no material that he blew any horn of the car as it came closer to the gate to open the gate or that in spite of the blowing the horn, there was any attempt made by the petitioner to close the gate or there was any obstruction caused by the petitioner in allowing the opposite party no.2 to enter inside the premises with his vehicle. The conduct of the opposite party no.2 in dashing the vehicle against the petitioner and after he fell down, running down the vehicle on his left leg, non-attempt to come out of the car to save the petitioner and backing the car only after the intervention of the wife and younger brothers of the petitioner coupled with the nature of injuries sustained by the injured are sufficient to come to an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the opposite party no.2 has committed an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of the petitioner gets corroboration not only from the medical evidence but from the statements of other witnesses. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court was not justified in not framing the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code even though charge sheet has been submitted for such offence and cognizance has been taken. In view of the forgoing discussions, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda to frame additional charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no.2 apart from the charges under sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code which have already been framed and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. It is needless to say that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the mind of the learned trial Court while adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the opposite party no.2 and he has to decide the case on the basis of the evidence which would be adduced by both the sides at the stage of trial. In the result, the CRLMC application is allowed.