SSK/ 1 CRA 572.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2011 Kamal Jugraj Jain ....Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak R More, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this revision application, the applicant challenges the order of learned Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 1068 of 2009 whereby the applicant’s application for discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 363 of the IPC came to be rejected. 3. The applicant is charged for offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 337, 338, 356, 363, 504 of the IPC and Sections 119, 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of FIR filed by Valmik Baburao Jadhav, API, on 19th July, 2009. Learned counsel for the applicant, invited my attention to the provisions of Sections 307 and 308 of the IPC. He SSK/ 2 CRA 572.11 made a limited prayer that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out, and at the most, offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC is attracted. Section 307 of the IPC deals with attempt to murder, whereas Section 308 of the IPC deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide. 4. I have perused the charge-sheet and especially the FIR. Reading of the same, makes it prima-facie clear that the charge under Section 307 is made out. In any case, the charge for offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC is lesser, and if ultimately the Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that offence under Section 308 of the IPC is proved after assessment of the offence, in that case, appropriate order will be passed in that regard. However, the applicant’s prayer for discharge from the offence under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be granted. The application is, accordingly, rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.)