HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5645 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gulfan And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 CRLR No. 5645 of 2026 2 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad