HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5569 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/448 BNSS has been filed against order dated 26.05.2026 as well as order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Case No. 1166 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 110, 352, 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law because from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, none of the injured sustained any grievous injuries and the injuries were not dangerous to life, therefore, no offence under Section 110 BNS (corresponding Section 308 IPC) is made out against the revisionists. It is further submitted that the prosecution case also shatters on the ground that one Shivam has denied the prosecution case and he himself has lodged an FIR against Satendra, Rahul, Rinku, Himanshu and Sandeep. 4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the present case, ten persons were assaulted with lathi, danda and sharp-edged weapons. It is also submitted that though the injuries are simple in nature, but most of them have been caused at the vital part of the body. It is contended that x-ray of five Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pushpendra Singh And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) injured persons was conducted, in which, no mark of injury was found. It is also contended that to attract an offence under Section 110 BNS, it is the intention and knowledge which is material and not the injuries sustained by the injured. In the present case, the injured and other witnesses have stated that the accused had assaulted them with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon and the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body, therefore, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence for framing charge under Section 110 BNS. 5. In view of submissions of both the parties and upon a perusal of material on record, it is clear that this revision has been filed against two orders. By one of them, the discharge application has been rejected and by the subsequent order, charges have been framed against the revisionists. 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 contention advanced on behalf of the revisionists is that the injuries are simple in nature and, therefore, offence under Section 110 BNS is not made out. I do not agree with this submission. Section 110 BNS is as follows: CRLR No. 5569 of 2026 2 Section 110- Attempt to commit culpable homicide- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 7. According to Section 110 BNS, the essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 110 BNS is the 'intention' or 'knowledge' and if the act is committed with such an intention or knowledge that if by that act death is caused, then the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the above scenario, Section 110 BNS would be attracted. 8. In the present case, the prosecution case is that all the accused armed with lathi, danda and sharp-edged weapons came and started committing assault, causing injuries to ten persons. They also abused and threatened them and thereafter fled from the spot. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 shows that the Trial Court has considered the evidence on record, medical report, the ocular evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and also the statement of doctor K.D. Rahul, and came to the conclusion that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence to frame charge under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 110, 352, 351(2), 115(2) BNS against the accused and accordingly, the discharge application was rejected and later on charges were framed. 8. The other contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist with regard to the injured Shivam having lodged another FIR of the same incident has no relevancy in this case, as it is only the evidence, which is collected by the Investigating Officer in this case that has to be considered at the stage of framing of charge. Any statement of witness would not be read in isolation. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any CRLR No. 5569 of 2026 3 illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 26.06.2026 and 08.07.2026. This Criminal Revision has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2026 Subham CRLR No. 5569 of 2026 4 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad