HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4888 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha, Pawan Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar Yadav And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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. September 9, 2026 Amit CRLR No. 4888 of 2026 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad