HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5668 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mayank Chaturvedi, Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ganga Prasad Chaubey And 7 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 CRLR No. 5668 of 2026 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad