ARJUN YADAV AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5555 of 2026

Arjun Yadav And 5 Others
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and
Sri Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2026
passed by the Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Session Case No.802
of 2026 (State vs. Arjun Yadav and Others). By the impugned order,
learned Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge application of the
revisionists/accused and has proceeded to frame charge on the next date.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law because the matter
was investigated and the Investigating Officer filed two charge-sheets. In
the first charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer included the offence under
Section 308 I.P.C. besides other sections, whereas, after further
investigation, he filed a second charge-sheet in which he found that the
offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. was not made out in view of
the statements of the doctor and other witnesses. Therefore, it is
vehemently argued that there is no evidence against the revisionists to
frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and submitted that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the present case, seven
persons were assaulted and sustained injuries, including injuries on their
head and other vital parts of their bodies. The assault was committed with
lathi, danda and axe. Therefore, the essential ingredients constituting an
                                                           CRLR No. 5555 of 2026
                                 2


offence under Section 308 I.P.C. are made out. The revisionists had
knowledge that, by their acts, death was caused, they would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, the revision has
no force and is liable to be dismissed.

5. 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.

6. The main argument on behalf of the revisionists is that there is no
evidence to frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C., as in the subsequent
charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence, found
that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. I do not agree
with the submission of learned Counsel for the revisionists. At the time of
framing of charge, the Court is not bound by the opinion of the
Investigating Officer. Further, to constitute an offence punishable under
Section 308 I.P.C., it is the 'intention' or 'knowledge' which is material,
and if from the evidence it is found that the accused had committed the
act with such intention or knowledge that, if by that act death is caused,
the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. would be attracted. In the present
case, in view of the statements of the witnesses and the injuries sustained,
the Trial Court has observed that there is no ground to discharge the
                                                                                           CRLR No. 5555 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    accused.

                                    7. 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.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.




                                                                                            (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Amit




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