RAJ KUMAR YADAV AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4888 of 2026

Raj Kumar Yadav And 2 Others
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha, Pawan
                                Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the
revisionists and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 03.07.2026
passed by the Additional Session Judge/FTC/ 14th Finance
Commission/Special Judge (Gangster Act) in S.T. No.187 of 2025 arising
out of Case Crime No.41 of 2023 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and
308 I.P.C., Police Station Manchi, District Sonbhadra.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the
discharge application filed on behalf of the revisionists seeking their
discharge from the offence punishable under Section 308 of the I.P.C.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionists that from the
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence under Section
308 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists and there was no intention
to cause death. It is also submitted that this is a matter of cross-case and
the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet in the cross-case lodged
on behalf of the revisionists against the named accused without adding
Section 308 I.P.C., though an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was made
out against the accused of the cross-case. It is further submitted that the
injuries are not of such a nature that death could have been caused. The
alleged assault on Panvi Devi has resulted in injuries of simple in nature.
Therefore, no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out and the
                                                           CRLR No. 4888 of 2026
                                 2


impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order and there is sufficient evidence against
the revisionists for framing charges under Section 308 I.P.C. In the
present case, three persons from the informant's side were injured in the
assault committed by the accused with lathi and danda. The injury reports
reveal that injured Ram Kewal sustained injuries on his head, nose and
teeth, besides a fracture of the left arm. Injured Nand Lal sustained five
injuries, including an injury to the head involving the right parietal bone,
a fracture of the arm and cut injuries caused by teeth at three places on his
back. Injured Panvi Devi sustained three injuries, out of which one was
lacerated wound on her head. It is further submitted that the injured
persons and other witnesses stated that the injured were brutally assaulted
and that, had the witnesses not intervened, the accused would have killed
them. It is, therefore, submitted that the present revision has no force and
is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is settled law that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is
not required to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record
by the prosecution, nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of
such material to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of
charge do not fall within the domain of the Court. In State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209, a three-Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a roving and fishing inquiry at the stage
of framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or discharge of the
accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is not permissible, as it would amount
to a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge and would be contrary to
the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is also well established
that the assessment of the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced at the time of framing of charge can be undertaken only
during the trial. A charge can be framed even on the basis of a strong
suspicion founded upon the material available before the Court, which
leads it to form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged.
                                                                                            CRLR No. 4888 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    7. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and
                                    looking into the statements of the witnesses and the injury reports, it is
                                    evident that the Trial Court, prima facie, found sufficient evidence to
                                    frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C. At the stage of framing of charge,
                                    a thorough examination or evaluation of the evidence is not required.
                                    Even on the basis of grave suspicion, a charge can be framed. The Trial
                                    Court has dealt with all the material aspects in relation to disposal of the
                                    discharge application. To constitute an offence under Section 308 I.P.C.,
                                    the essential ingredient is 'intention' or 'knowledge' for doing such an act.
                                    Looking into the present case and the nature and number of injuries
                                    sustained by the injured, prima facie, the offence punishable under
                                    Section 308 I.P.C. is attracted.

                                    8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned
                                    order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity.
                                    Consequently, no interference by this Court is warranted. The present
                                    revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

                                    9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.



                                                                                             (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Amit




Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad