PUSHPENDRA SINGH AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5569 of 2026

Pushpendra Singh And 5 Others
                                                         .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)            :    Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :    G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/448 BNSS has been filed
against order dated 26.05.2026 as well as order dated 08.07.2026 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Case No. 1166 of
2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 110, 352, 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Ahmadgarh,
District Bulandshahr.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the impugned orders
are not sustainable in the eye of law because from the evidence collected
by the Investigating Officer, none of the injured sustained any grievous
injuries and the injuries were not dangerous to life, therefore, no offence
under Section 110 BNS (corresponding Section 308 IPC) is made out
against the revisionists. It is further submitted that the prosecution case
also shatters on the ground that one Shivam has denied the prosecution
case and he himself has lodged an FIR against Satendra, Rahul, Rinku,
Himanshu and Sandeep.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned order. In the present case, ten persons were assaulted
with lathi, danda and sharp-edged weapons. It is also submitted that
though the injuries are simple in nature, but most of them have been
caused at the vital part of the body. It is contended that x-ray of five
                                                         CRLR No. 5569 of 2026
                                2


injured persons was conducted, in which, no mark of injury was found. It
is also contended that to attract an offence under Section 110 BNS, it is
the intention and knowledge which is material and not the injuries
sustained by the injured. In the present case, the injured and other
witnesses have stated that the accused had assaulted them with lathi,
danda and sharp edged weapon and the injuries were caused on the vital
parts of the body, therefore, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence for
framing charge under Section 110 BNS.

5. In view of submissions of both the parties and upon a perusal of
material on record, it is clear that this revision has been filed against two
orders. By one of them, the discharge application has been rejected and by
the subsequent order, charges have been framed against the revisionists. 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 contention advanced on behalf of the revisionists is that the
injuries are simple in nature and, therefore, offence under Section 110
BNS is not made out. I do not agree with this submission. Section 110
BNS is as follows:
                                                          CRLR No. 5569 of 2026
                                3


     Section 110- Attempt to commit culpable homicide-
     Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and
     under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
     would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
     shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
     term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both;
     and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished
     with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
     extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

7. According to Section 110 BNS, the essential ingredient to constitute an
offence under Section 110 BNS is the 'intention' or 'knowledge' and if the
act is committed with such an intention or knowledge that if by that act
death is caused, then the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. In the above scenario, Section 110 BNS would
be attracted.

8. In the present case, the prosecution case is that all the accused armed
with lathi, danda and sharp-edged weapons came and started committing
assault, causing injuries to ten persons. They also abused and threatened
them and thereafter fled from the spot. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 26.05.2026 shows that the Trial Court has considered the evidence
on record, medical report, the ocular evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer and also the statement of doctor K.D. Rahul, and
came to the conclusion that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence to
frame charge under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 110, 352, 351(2),
115(2) BNS against the accused and accordingly, the discharge
application was rejected and later on charges were framed.

8. The other contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist with regard
to the injured Shivam having lodged another FIR of the same incident
has no relevancy in this case, as it is only the evidence, which is collected
by the Investigating Officer in this case that has to be considered at the
stage of framing of charge. Any statement of witness would not be read in
isolation.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
                                                                                      CRLR No. 5569 of 2026
                                                                4


                                    illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 26.06.2026 and
                                    08.07.2026. This Criminal Revision has no force and it is accordingly
                                    dismissed.



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




Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad