GULFAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5645 of 2026

Gulfan And 3 Others
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                :   Ashutosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists
and Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
10.08.2026 of the learned Trial Court passed in Sessions Trial No.836 of
2026 (State Vs. Gulfam and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.200 of
2025.

3. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has framed charges against
the revisionists under Sections- 109(1)/3(5), 115(3)/3(5), 117(2)/3(5), 351(2)
and 352 B.N.S.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionists that there was no
evidence to frame charge under Section 109(1)/3(5) B.N.S. It is also
submitted that as per injury report only two injuries were caused to the
injured and one was found grievous in nature, but the doctor has not opined
that the injury was dangerous to life. It is also submitted that the charge-
sheet was filed without recording of statement of the injured and his
statement was recorded later on. Therefore, from the evidence on record,
offence under Section 109(1)/3(5) was not made out, and thus, the impugned
order to this extent is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality and infirmity
in the impugned order. There was sufficient evidence that the accused
committed the act with intention to cause murder of the injured. The first
informant and other eye witnesses have stated that all the accused in
furtherance of their common intention attacked the injured causing him
injuries with spade with intention to kill. It has come in evidence that they
were trying to struck second attempt, then the first informant's another son
Javed snatched the spade, as a result the injured escaped other assault, and
                                                                                               CRLR No. 5645 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    the accused fled away from the spot giving threats.

                                    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, therefore, learned trial court has not committed any
                                    illegality and infirmity in passing the impugned order.

                                    7. In view of the above, if we consider the impugned order on the
                                    availability of material on record then, it is found that the charges have been
                                    framed by the learned Trial Court, in view of statement of the first informant
                                    and other witnesses as well as the medical report of the injured. The
                                    witnesses have stated before the I.O. that the act was committed with
                                    intention to kill. It is found that the injury was over head, which is vital part
                                    of the body, and a fracture was caused and doctor has opined the injury as
                                    grievous in nature. Therefore, the learned Trial Court after considering the
                                    material on record has framed charge under Section 109(1)/3(5) B.N.S. also
                                    beside, other sections. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the
                                    impugned order.

                                    8. Therefore, this revision has no force and is accordingly, dismissed.
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    AdityaG
                                                                                                (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad