G.D.SAXENA,J. - (1.)BEING aggrieved by an order dated 9th May 2012 in Sessions Case No. 131/2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.), framing thereby charges against the petitioner-accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323 of I.P.C., this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred.
(2.)THE facts in brief and relevant for decision of this petition are that on 2nd February, 2012 at around 11 p.m., in night, co-accused Keshav Sharma went to the house of injured who fell in love with the daughter of the petitioner-accused and knocked the door. The door was opened by Shanu, complainant, sister of injured. It is alleged that thereafter, accused Keshav Sharma alongwith one other person dragged her brother Shajid and fired two shots by his country-made pistol causing serious injuries to injured. The report of the incident was lodged by Shanu, sister of injured. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal, the sessions trial was commenced and by the impugned order, the aforesaid charges are framed against the petitioner, hence this revision.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. was lodged by the sister of injured in which she mentioned that her brother had love affairs with the sister of accused Keshav Sharma. It is submitted by him that on a fateful day, the accused Keshav Sharma with one other person came to her house and knocked the door. When she opened the door, the accused dragged her brother Shajid out side the room and fired shots by his country-made pistol which caused injuries. It is argued that during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of eye- witnesses in which most of the witnesses named one person as unknown who was with accused Keshav. However, in dying declaration of injured Shajid, accused-petitioner Ram Kishore Sharma, father of co- accused Keshav was said to be present on the spot. Witness Raj Bahadur Singh in his statement also named the petitioner. However no specific role in crime is assigned to the petitioner while filing charge sheet by the investigation.

(3.)THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the settled principles of law to frame and prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., the main ingredient of attempt to commit murder, i.e., the intention of the accused is to be gathered and seen from the circumstances appeared from the evidence produced before the trial court. According to him, in the absence of clear intention to kill the injured established against the accused/petitioner, no charge for offence punishable under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. can be framed. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the accused/petitioner be discharged of the offence.