GANGA PRASAD CHAUBEY AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5668 of 2026

Ganga Prasad Chaubey And 7 Others
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Mayank Chaturvedi, Surendra Kumar
                                Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, 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
20.08.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Varanasi in
Session Trial No.384 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Chaubey and
Others).

3. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge
application of the revisionists and has directed them to appear in person on
the date fixed, for framing of charge. It is submitted by learned Counsel for
the revisionist that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law,
because there was no sufficient evidence to frame charge against the
revisionists. It is emphatically submitted that the deceased was treated in
Popular Hospital, Varanasi and as per death certificate issued by the
hospital, the deceased was suffering from cardiac respiratory failure in a case
of post traumatic SAH C multiple contusion (physical assault).

4. Therefore, due to the above cause of death, no charge under Section 302
I.P.C. is made out. It is also submitted that the alleged incident had occurred
on 26.11.2017 and the deceased has died on 03.12.2017. It is next submitted
that at most, the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. may be made out and not
under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the revisionists further
submits that the revisionist Prabhu Shankar Chaubey was not present at the
spot and he was posted and present in Chittorgarh, District Jail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State submits that there was
sufficient evidence against the revisionists to frame charge under Section
302 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the post-mortem of the deceased was
                                                            CRLR No. 5668 of 2026
                                  2

conducted in which ten ante-mortem injuries were found over different parts
of the body including head and the cause of death was opined as coma, as a
result of head injury. There is also injury report of the deceased which
discloses seven injuries over his body of the nature of lacerated wound over
left and right side of its head; red contusion swelling just over left eye;
lacerated wound in lateral aspect of right ear and lacerated wound over left
hand 9 cm and red contusion over left forearm.

6. As per prosecution case, all the accused came at the spot carrying lathi,
danda, stones and gandasa (chopper), causing injuries to two persons, out of
them one scummed to injuries. It is submitted on behalf of State that even on
grave suspicion charges can be framed. It is also submitted that
contradictions even if any, will not be considered, at this stage. Further, the
plea of alibi also cannot be considered at this stage, and it is a matter of trial
after examination of evidence led by both the parties. Therefore, this
revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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.

8. In view of the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of record, it is clear that the revisionists are named in the F.I.R. and
after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against them. The main
contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that as per the death
certificate issued by the Popular Hospital, Varanasi, offence under Section
302 I.P.C. is not made out.

9. The above contention has no force at this stage, because the above report
also shows that the deceased had suffered multiple physical assault, though it
was opined that he was suffering from cardiac respiratory and as per post-
                                                                                               CRLR No. 5668 of 2026
                                                                     3

                                    mortem report the cause of death was coma as a result of head injuries. Post-
                                    mortem report shows injuries were over head of the deceased. The witnesses
                                    in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution
                                    version. The learned Trial Court has observed from the evidence on record,
                                    beside other offences, there is sufficient evidence to frame charge under
                                    Section 302 I.P.C. also. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed.
                                    Whether there was any intention or knowledge to cause the death or to
                                    commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is a matter of trial to be
                                    decided after the evidence is led by both the parties.

                                    10. Accordingly, there is no no material illegality, irregularity, or perversity
                                    has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the revisionists in the
                                    impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage.

                                    11. Therefore, this revision has no force and is dismissed.
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    AdityaG
                                                                                               (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)




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