IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1428 of 2009 1. Anil Prasad 2. Pintu Prasad Both sons of Brij Nandan Prasad. 3. Rajesh Kumar son of Suresh Prasad. 4. Umesh Prasad son of Ayodhya Prasad. All resident of Village-Jamuara, P.S.-Narhat, District- Nawada. ….Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar. …Opposite Party. For petitioner’s Advocate:-Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad. Fro the State:- Mr. B.N Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 21.10.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the learned Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 9/2009 by which the petition dated 18.02.2007 filed by them under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C is made out against the petitioners. From the injury and the weapon used, it does not appear that the accused had intention to kill the victims as such no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out. The learned counsel for the State submits that the nature of the injury is immaterial for the consideration of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has found that there was intention to kill the victim Jyoti Kumari, who has been assaulted with khanti on her head causing her injury. It cannot be presumed that they had no intention to kill 2 the victim of the occurrence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on the record it appears that an occurrence had taken place on 08.06.2008 between victim and the accused with regard to a drainage. Petitioners have after altercation assaulted the victims. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the injury report as well as the case diary and has come to the conclusion that there is ground for presuming that the accused have also committed offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. Kamlesh (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)