HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5555 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Session Case No.802 of 2026 (State vs. Arjun Yadav and Others). By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists/accused and has proceeded to frame charge on the next date. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law because the matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer filed two charge-sheets. In the first charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer included the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. besides other sections, whereas, after further investigation, he filed a second charge-sheet in which he found that the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. was not made out in view of the statements of the doctor and other witnesses. Therefore, it is vehemently argued that there is no evidence against the revisionists to frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the present case, seven persons were assaulted and sustained injuries, including injuries on their head and other vital parts of their bodies. The assault was committed with lathi, danda and axe. Therefore, the essential ingredients constituting an Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Yadav And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) offence under Section 308 I.P.C. are made out. The revisionists had knowledge that, by their acts, death was caused, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. The main argument on behalf of the revisionists is that there is no evidence to frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C., as in the subsequent charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence, found that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. I do not agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the revisionists. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer. Further, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C., it is the 'intention' or 'knowledge' which is material, and if from the evidence it is found that the accused had committed the act with such intention or knowledge that, if by that act death is caused, the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. would be attracted. In the present case, in view of the statements of the witnesses and the injuries sustained, the Trial Court has observed that there is no ground to discharge the CRLR No. 5555 of 2026 2 accused. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. September 23, 2026 Amit CRLR No. 5555 of 2026 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad