# Padmakar Upadhyay Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1088
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1956 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/padmakar-upadhyay-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52617
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

offence under Section 307 IPC at the stage of
consideration under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., by
evaluating the nature of injuries and holding
that no life-threatening injury was caused,
instead of confining itself to the test of
existence of a prima facie case.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.227, 228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
s.307 - Discharge - Framing of charge -
Attempt to murder - Prima facie case -
Scope of scrutiny - No roving enquiry -
Mini-trial
impermissible
-
Order
of
discharge set aside.

Held:

At the stage of consideration under Sections 227
and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine
whether the material on record, if taken at its
face value, discloses the existence of a prima
facie case against the accused. The Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1089
evidence or conduct a roving enquiry or minitrial. [Paras 16-22]

For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the
determinative factors are the intention or
knowledge with which the act is done and the
circumstances under which it is committed. The
mere absence of a life-threatening injury is not
conclusive at the stage of framing of charge.
[Paras 11, 17-18]

In the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged
promptly against named accused persons. The
materials on record, including statements of
injured
witnesses
and
police
personnel,
disclosed allegations of firing with intention to
kill, exhortation to commit murder, assault even
inside the police station, and grievous injuries,
including fracture, suffered by the revisionist.
[Paras 3-5, 9-10, 23-24]

The Trial Court erred in discharging the accused
from the offence under Section 307 IPC by
assessing that the injuries were not sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature
and by evaluating the probative value of
evidence, which was impermissible at the stage
of discharge. [Paras 6-8, 14]

In view of the nature of allegations, injury
reports, medical evidence, and the overall
genesis of the occurrence, the High Court held
that sufficient prima facie material existed for
framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against
the accused. [Paras 23-25]

Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
11.04.2025
discharging
the
accused
from
Section 307 IPC was set aside, and it was
directed that the accused be charged under
Section 307 IPC to face trial. [Paras 25-26]
Criminal revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan,
(2014) 11 SCC 709 - relied on; Sheoraj
Singh
Ahlawat
v.
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 476 - relied
on; Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa and
Another, (2020) 17 SCC 556 - relied
on; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 - relied on;
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977)
4 SCC 39 - relied on.
List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Attempt to murder; Discharge; Framing of
charge; Prima facie case; Scope under
Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C.; No mini-trial;
Grievous injury; Intention to kill.

Case Arising From
Order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.
04 of 2025 (State v. Subedar Singh and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of
2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325,
307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khutahan,
District Jaunpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist/Complainant: Sri
Sheshadri Trivedi
For Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6:Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh
For the State: Learned AGA

## Text

1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on
an acknowledged principle of law that once
a matter is finally disposed of by a court,
the said court in the absence of a specific
statutory provision becomes functus officio
and is disentitled to entertain a fresh
prayer for any relief unless the former
order of final disposal is set aside by a
court of competent jurisdiction in a manner
prescribed by law. The court becomes
functus officio the moment the order for
disposing of a case is signed. Such an order
cannot be altered except to the extent of
correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.
There is also no provision for modification
of the judgement."

18. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that the criminal
justice delivery system does not empower
the Court to add or delete any words,
except to correct the clerical or arithmetical
error as has specifically been provided
under
the
statute
itself
that
after
pronouncement of the judgement the Judge
becomes functus officio. Any mistake or
glaring omission is left to be corrected only
by the appropriate forum in accordance
with law.

19. The
record
shows
that
on
06.01.2021 and 18.01.2021, no one was
present for the opposite party no. 2. It
means that the opposite party no. 2 did not
appear on two previous dates and also on
the date when the revision was decided on
merits. The opposite party no. 2 was given
sufficient opportunity for arguments.

20.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court
coupled with the provisions of Section 362
Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to recall the
order dated 27.01.2021 disposing of the
revision.

21. Accordingly, this recall application
is rejected.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1088
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1956 of 2025

Padmakar Upadhyay ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sheshadri Trivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Ashok Kumar Singh, G.A., Pratibha Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in
discharging the accused persons from the
offence under Section 307 IPC at the stage of
consideration under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., by
evaluating the nature of injuries and holding
that no life-threatening injury was caused,
instead of confining itself to the test of
existence of a prima facie case.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.227, 228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
s.307 - Discharge - Framing of charge -
Attempt to murder - Prima facie case -
Scope of scrutiny - No roving enquiry -
Mini-trial
impermissible
-
Order
of
discharge set aside.

Held:

At the stage of consideration under Sections 227
and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine
whether the material on record, if taken at its
face value, discloses the existence of a prima
facie case against the accused. The Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1089
evidence or conduct a roving enquiry or minitrial. [Paras 16-22]

For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the
determinative factors are the intention or
knowledge with which the act is done and the
circumstances under which it is committed. The
mere absence of a life-threatening injury is not
conclusive at the stage of framing of charge.
[Paras 11, 17-18]

In the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged
promptly against named accused persons. The
materials on record, including statements of
injured
witnesses
and
police
personnel,
disclosed allegations of firing with intention to
kill, exhortation to commit murder, assault even
inside the police station, and grievous injuries,
including fracture, suffered by the revisionist.
[Paras 3-5, 9-10, 23-24]

The Trial Court erred in discharging the accused
from the offence under Section 307 IPC by
assessing that the injuries were not sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature
and by evaluating the probative value of
evidence, which was impermissible at the stage
of discharge. [Paras 6-8, 14]

In view of the nature of allegations, injury
reports, medical evidence, and the overall
genesis of the occurrence, the High Court held
that sufficient prima facie material existed for
framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against
the accused. [Paras 23-25]

Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
11.04.2025
discharging
the
accused
from
Section 307 IPC was set aside, and it was
directed that the accused be charged under
Section 307 IPC to face trial. [Paras 25-26]
Criminal revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan,
(2014) 11 SCC 709 - relied on; Sheoraj
Singh
Ahlawat
v.
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 476 - relied
on; Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa and
Another, (2020) 17 SCC 556 - relied
on; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 - relied on;
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977)
4 SCC 39 - relied on.
List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Attempt to murder; Discharge; Framing of
charge; Prima facie case; Scope under
Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C.; No mini-trial;
Grievous injury; Intention to kill.

Case Arising From
Order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.
04 of 2025 (State v. Subedar Singh and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of
2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325,
307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khutahan,
District Jaunpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist/Complainant: Sri
Sheshadri Trivedi
For Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6:Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh
For the State: Learned AGA

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi,
learned counsel for the revisionistcomplainant, learned AGA for the State
as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2
to 6.

2. The revisionist/complainant has
filed the present criminal revision being
aggrieved by the impugned order dated
11.4.2025,
passed
by
the
learned
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in Sessions
Trial No.04 of 2025 (State vs. Subedar
Singh and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.18 of 2024, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Police Station
Khutahan, District Jaunpur, whereby the
Trial Court has discharged the opposite
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party Nos. 2 to 6 from the offence
punishable under Sections 307 IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that
FIR dated 20.1.2024 was registered as Case
Crime no.18 of 2025, under Sections 395
IPC at Police Station Khutahan District
Jaunpur. The FIR was lodged by the
revisionist/complainant with the allegations
with regard to the occurrence dated
19.1.2024 at 11.00 p.m. nominating the
opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and one Arvind
Singh with the narrative that in the night of
19.1.2024,
when
the
revisionist
was
returning
after
getting
his
brothers
Sudhakar
Upadhayay
and
Diwakar
Upadhayay admitted in a hospital, then the
accused persons started chasing them in
three vehicles, during which the opposite
party No.2/ Subedar Singh resorted to
firing upon the revisionist/complainant.
Then the revisionist/complainant tried to
save his life by taking refuge in Police
Station
Khutahan;
in
spite
of
that,
undeterred the opposite party nos. 2 to 6
also forcefully entered into police station.
The accused persons started assaulting the
revisionist/complainant and his brothers
inside the police station with lathi and
sticks, but because of the intervention of
the police, lives of the revisionist and his
brothers were saved. During continuance of
said occurrence, the left hand of the
revisionist was fractured and Rs.11,000/-
was also looted away by the Opposite Party
Nos.2 to 6.

4. Leaned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the impugned order dated
11.4.2025 is bad in the eyes of law, illegal
having apparent illegality and jurisdictional
error, which is liable to be set aside. Learned
counsel for the revisionist has further
submitted
that
injury
report
of
the
revisionist/complainant was prepared and
four injuries were found in his injury report;
the injured-Sudhakar Upadhayay has got
two injuries in his injury report and the
injured-Divakar Upadhyay has also got two
injuries.

5. It is further submitted by the leaned
counsel for the revisionist that during the
course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of the
revisionist, who categorically stated that the
accused persons were firing upon the vehicle
of the revisionist with the intention of
committing his murder and during the actual
course of the occurrence within the police
station, it was exhorted that the revisionist
and
others
be
done
to
death.
The
Investigating Officer recorded the statement
of Constable, Sonu Yadav posted at the
Police Station Khutahan, who supported the
case of the revisionist. On the basis of the
said statement and other evidence collected,
the Investigating Officer converted the case
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504,
506 IPC. The Investigating Officer also
recorded the statement of injured witness
Diwakar Upadhayay, who also supported
the version of the FIR. The injuredSudhakar Upadhayay has also recorded his
statement that the Opposite Party nos.2 to 6
were involved in the firing upon them and
had thereafter they assaulted them inside the
police station with the intention to commit
their murder. The police has submitted
charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.
P.C. on 1.4.2024. The case was committed,
then the opposite party nos.2 to 5 filed an
application (12-Kha) on 13.2.2025, while
the opposite party no. 6 submitted his
separate application no.20-kha on 24.3.2025
with the prayer that they may be discharged
from the offence under Section 307 IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the learned Sessions
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1091
Judge has wrongly passed the impugned
order dated 11.4.2025 and discharged the
opposite party Nos.2 to 6 from the offence
under section 307 IPC on the basis of the
fact that neither the revisionist nor any
other injured person had sustained any life
threatening injury, and there was no
allegation that any incised weapon or firearm had been used to inflict the injuries
upon the revisionist and other injured
persons.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further submitted that the learned trial
court has held that the injuries caused
during the course of occurrence were not of
such kind that could have resulted in the
death of either the revisionist or other
injured persons in the ordinary course of
nature, whereas, it had been categorically
and consistently stated that the opposite
party nos.2 to 6 were resorted to firing
upon the revisionist and other injured
persons while chasing the vehicles of the
revisionist. He further submitted that the
learned trial court failed to consider that
opposite party nos.2 to 6 were exhorting
even inside the police station to commit the
murder of the revisionist and other injured
persons. The revisionist further submitted
that the learned trial court committed
serious illegality in conducting a roving
inquiry and even a mini trial at the stage of
discharge, which is impermissible in the
eyes of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

8. The revisionist further submitted
that the learned trial court failed to consider
that the primary consideration at the stage
of framing of charge is the test of existence
of a prima facie case and at this stage, the
probative value of material on record need
not be gone into. The court has only to
form
a
presumptive
opinion
to
the
existence of factual ingredient constituting
the offence and it is not expected to go
deep into probative value of the material on
record and to check whether the material on
record would certainly lead to conviction or
not at the conclusion of the trial. Learned
counsel for the revisionist further submitted
that it is a settled law that the defence of
the accused is not to be looked into at the
stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged.
The
revisionist
further
submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 6
are hardened criminals and the opposite
party no.2/Subedar Singh is a previous
convict in Sessions Trial No.83 of 2013,
arising out of Case Crime no.728 of 2012,
under Section 302/149, 307/149 and 120B
of IPC, Police Station Sardhana District
Jaunpur and has a criminal history of 21
cases to his credit.

9. Elaborating further, learned counsel
for the revisionist submitted that the
opposite party nos.2 to 6 are named in the
FIR, which was lodged promptly. The
alleged incident took place in the night and
when the revisionist along with other have
no option and they entered in the Police
Station Khutahan, the opposite party nos. 2
to 6 had also entered into the Police Station
and continued the offence there. It reflects
gravity and intention of opposite party nos.
2 to 6. The complainant/revisionist had
suffered four injuries and injury no.1 is
8.0x3.0 cm upper part of left forehead, 5.0
cm above from left wrist. The forehead is a
vital part of the body and the injury could
be fatal. The other injured Sudhakar
Upadhayay and Diwakar Upadhayay had
also suffered injuries which is verified by
their injury reports.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has filed statement of Dr. Sartaj Khan,
Medical Officer and the statement of
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Radiologist, Dr. Arvind Kumar Pandey. Dr.
Arif Sarfaraz Khan had verified injury
report
of
injured
Padmakar
Upadhayay/revisionist that he had suffered
four injuries and injury nos.1 and 2 were
kept under observation as well as advised
for X-ray and referred to District Hospital,
Jaunpur. He also verified injury report of
injured-Diwakar Upadhayay and Sudhakar
Upadhayay.
In
the
statement
of
Radiologist, Dr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, he
has stated that injured revisionist had got
left forearm fractured and also fracture in
small finger in left hand.

11. As per Section 320 IPC, fractured
or dislocation of a bone or tooth has been
designated as grievous hurt. The genesis
and prima facie case has to be considered.
Section 307 IPC defines the offence of
attempt to murder, 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
murder?"

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further vehemently submitted that as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs.
State of Goa and another; 2020 (17) SCC
556 that more than prima facie case against
the accused for which he is required to be
tried. All that the court is to consider is
whether evidentiary material on record if
had been accepted, would reasonably
connect the accused with the crime. The
court has not to make a roving enquiry into
the pros and cons of the matter and weigh
the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

13. Learned AGA has submitted that
the learned trial court entered into the
merits of the case and it had evaluated the
evidence at the stage of framing of charge.
The learned trial court is to see only prima
facie case and not to conduct any roving
enquiry or make trial. The impugned order
is thus liable to be set aside.

14. Learned counsel for the opposite
party nos.2 to 6 has submitted that the
impugned order is not having any illegality
or irregularity as none of the injury is
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death. There are no sufficient
injuries, which is amounting to attempt to
murder. There is no pirma facie evidence of
presumption against the opposite party
nos.2 to 6 to try them under Section 307
IPC. The impugned order is, therefore,
liable to be upheld and the present revision
is liable to be dismissed.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further submitted that opposite party
No.2/Subedar Singh had filed Criminal
Misc. Bail Application no.6459 of 2025 in
the present crime before this Court and this
Court was pleased to reject his second bail
application vide order dated 17.3.2025
holding that "learned counsel for the first
informant submits that the present bail
application has been filed almost on
identical grounds. The case of the applicant
is at no parity with the co-accused, the
applicant is a hardened criminal having
criminal history 21 cases and in one case
being S.T. No. 86 of 2013 arising out of
Case Crime no.728 of 2012 under Section
302/149, 307/149 and 120B IPC, Police
Station, Sardhana District Jaunpur, the
applicant/Subedar
Singh
has
been
convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment along with fine. Considering
aforesaid submission made by the leaned
counsel for the first informant as well as
considering the long criminal history of the
applicant, this Court found no good ground
to interfere in the present second bail
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1093
application. Accordingly the second bail
application was rejected."

16. For proper adjudication of the
case, sections 226, 227, 228 Cr.P.C as well
as Section 307 IPC are quoted herein
below:-

"226.
Opening
case
for
prosecution.

When the accused appears or is
brought before the Court in pursuance of a
commitment of the case under section 209,
the prosecutor shall open his case by
describing the charge brought against the
accused and stating by what evidence he
proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.

227. Discharge.

If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents
submit-ted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.

(1) If, after such consideration
and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by
the Court of Session, he may frame a
charge against the accused and, by order,
transfer the case for trial to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, for any other Judicial
Magistrate of the first class and di-rect the
accused to appear before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the
Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on
such date as he deems fit, and thereupon
such Magistrate"] shall try the offence in
accordance with the procedure for the trial
of warrant-cases instituted on a police
report:

(b) is exclusively triable by the
Court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any
charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1).
the charge shall be read and explained to
the accused and the accused shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty of the offence
charged or claims to be tried.

307. Attempt to murder.

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 murder. shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life]. or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life-convicts. When
any person offending under this sec-tion is
under sentence of [imprisonment for life),
he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with
death.]"

17. In the case of State of Tamilnadu
Vs. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the
scope of proceeding at the stage of framing
of charge under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C.
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Apex Court held that at this stage
probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to
go deep into the matter and hold that the
materials would not warrant a conviction. It
is further held that what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been
committed and not whether a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out.
To put it differently, if the court thinks that
the accused might have committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on
record on its probative value, it can frame
the charge; though for conviction, the court
has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence which
does not permit a mini trial at this stage.

18. It is held by the Apex Court in
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P
(2013) 11 SCC 476 that it is trite that at the
stage of framing of charge, the court is
required to evaluate the materials and
documents on record with a view to find
out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken
at their face value, disclose the existence of
all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At that stage, the court is not
expected to go deep into the probative value
of the material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been
committed and not a ground for convicting
the accused has been made out. At that stage,
even strong suspicion founded on material
which leads the court to form a presumptive
opinion as to existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged
would justify the framing of charge against
the accused in respect of the commission of
that offence.

19. The Apex Court held in Tarun Jit
Tejpal (supra) as follows:-

"31.1. Under Section 227 of the
Code, the trial court is required to
discharge the accused if it "considers that
there
is
not
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused". However,
discharge under Section 239 can be ordered
when "the Magistrate considers the charge
against the accused to be groundless". The
power to discharge is exercisable under
Section 245(1) when, "the Magistrate
considers, for reasons to be recorded that
no case against the accused has been made
out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his
conviction".

31.2.
Section
227
and
239
provide for discharge before the recording
of evidence on the basis of the police
report, the documents sent along with it and
examination of the accused after giving an
opportunity to the parties to be heard.
However, the stage of discharge under
Section 245, on the other hand, is reached
only after the evidence referred in Section
244 has been taken.

31.3. Thus, there is difference in
the language employed in these provisions.
But, in our opinion, notwithstanding these
differences, and whichever provision may
be applicable, the court is required at this
stage to see that there is a prima facie case
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.
Reference in this connection can be made
to a judgment of this Court in R.S. Nayak
vs. A.R. Antulay [(1986) 2 SCC 716: 1986
SCC (Cri) 256]. The same reads as follows:
(SCC pp. 755-56, para 43).

"
43.
Notwithstanding
this
difference in the position there is no scope
for doubt that the stage at which the
Magistrate is required to consider the
question of framing of charge under
Section 245(1) is a preliminary one and the
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1095
test of prima facie case has to be applied. In
spite of the difference in the language of
the three sections, the legal position is that
if the trial court is satisfied that a prima
facie case is made out, charge has to be
framed."

20. It is further held in the said case of
Tarun Jit Tejpal (supra) as follows:-

" 9.2 In the subsequent decision
in the case of S. Selvi (Supra) this Court
has summarised the principles while
framing of the charge at the stage of
Section 277/228 of the CrPC. This Court
has observed and held in paragraph 6 and 7
as under:

"6. It is well settled by this Court
in a catena of judgments including Union
of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [ Union
of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979)
3 SCC 4: 1979 SCC (Cri) 609], Dilawar
Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra
[Dilawar
Balu
Kurane
vs. State
of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135: 2002 SCC
(Cri) 310], Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI [ Sajjan
Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368: (2010)
3 SCC (Cri) 1371 1, State vs. A. Arun
Kumar [ State vs. A. Arun Kumar, (2015) 2
SCC 417: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 96: (2015) 1
SCC (L&S) 505 ], Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak
Gupta [ Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta,
(2015) 3 SCC 424 (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265
], State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
[State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2003) 2 SCC 711: 2003 SCC (Cri) 688),
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs.
Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [ Niranjan Singh
Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76: 1991 SCC (Cri)
47 ] and Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja [ Supt. &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Anil
Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 1979
SCC (Cri) 1038] that the Judge while
considering the question of framing charge
under Section 227 of the Code in sessions
cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC
pertaining to warrant cases) has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out,
where the material placed before the court
discloses grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified
in framing the charge; by and large if two
views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion against the accused, he
will be fully within his rights to discharge
the accused. The Judge cannot act merely
as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the statements and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
materials as if he was conducting a trial.

7. In Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI [
Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371 ], this Court on
consideration of the various decisions about
the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code, laid down the following principles:
(SCC pp. 376-77, para 21)

"(i) The Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or
not a prima facie case against the accused
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been made out. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the
facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed
before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely
as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities, etc.
However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material
on record, the court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material
on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227
and 228, the court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with
a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose
the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage
to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.

(vii) If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage, he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal.""

9.3 In the case of Mauvin
Godinho (Supra) this Court had an
occasion to consider how to determine
prima facie case while framing the charge
under Section 227/228 of the CrPC. In the
same decision this Court observed and held
that while considering the prima facie case
at the stage of framing of the charge under
Section 227 of the CrPC there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial."

21. The Apex Court in Union of India
Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC
4, has summarized some of the principles
which are as follows:-

"(1)
That
the
Judge
while
considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Code has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused had been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed
before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
11 All. Padmakar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1097
properly explained the court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima
facie case would naturally depend upon the
facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By
and large however if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving
rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.

(4)
That
in
exercising
his
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code
the Judge which under the present Code is
a senior and experienced court cannot act
merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution, but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

22. It is held by the Supreme Court
Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) and in
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh; (1977)
4 SCC 39 that in fact Section 227 itself
contains enough guidelines as to the scope
of enquiry for the purpose of discharging
an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall
discharge when he considers that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused". The "ground" in the context
is not a ground for conviction, but a ground
for putting the accused on trial. It is in the
trial, the guilt or the innocence of the
accused will be determined and not at the
time of framing of charge. The court,
therefore, need not undertake an elaborate
enquiry in sifting and weighing the
material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep
into various aspects. All that the court has
to consider is whether the evidentiary
material on record if generally accepted,
would reasonably connect the accused with
the crime. No more need be enquired into.

23. In view of the facts and genesis of
the crime that there is previous enmity
between the complainant and the accused
persons, the alleged incident took place in
the night and the FIR was lodged promptly
against
the
named
accused
persons/opposite party nos. 2 to 6. The
revisionist and other injured persons to
save their lives had entered into police
station to seek protection, the opposite
party nos. 2 to 6 have dare enough to chase
the revisionist and other persons into the
police station also and continued the
offence and beaten them there. The injury
report of revisionist, who has got injuries
on his left forehead which is a vital part and
also got fracture. It is confirmed by the
statement of the Radiologist, Dr. A. K.
Pandey that he also suffered left forearm
fracture and fracture in the small of finger
of left hand. The fracture comes within the
definition of grievous hurt. The statement
of the police officials of concerned police
station
are
also
recorded
and
they
confirmed the incident .

24. After a detail investigation, the
charge sheet has been filed against the
Opposite party Nos.2 to 6 under Sections
147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506. The
entire genesis, the nature of the injury and
the offending and heinous nature of
opposite party no.2/Subedar Singh, who
had already convicted and having a long
criminal history of 21 cases, are to be
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
looked into. All these consideration are
enough and prima facie, the sufficient
material is there for framing the charge
under Section 307 against opposite party
nos. 2 to 6.

25. In view of reasons mentioned
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
11.4.2025,
passed
by
the
learned
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions
Trial No.04 of 2025 (State Vs. Subedar
Singh and other), arising out of Case
Crime No.18 of 2024, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 of
IPC, Police Station Khutahan, District
Jaunpur, whereby the Trial Court has
discharged the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6
from the offence under Sections 307 IPC
is, hereby set aside. The opposite party
Nos. 2 to 6 have to be charged also
under Section 307 IPC to face trial.

26.
With
these
observation
this
criminal revision is, hereby, allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1098
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6771 of 2024

Rameshavar Dayal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sanjive Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Nagendra Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved
by the revisionist-informant for summoning
opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 as additional
accused in a case under Sections 498-A and 306
IPC, when the allegations against them in the
F.I.R. and depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were
general and omnibus in nature.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319
- Summoning of additional accused -
Degree of satisfaction - "More than prima
facie case" - General and omnibus
allegations - Dowry death - Matrimonial
dispute - Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- Order refusing summoning affirmed.

Held:

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an
extraordinary and discretionary power, which is
required to be exercised sparingly and only
where strong and cogent evidence emerges
during trial indicating involvement of a person
not already facing trial. Mere suspicion or
probability of complicity is insufficient. [Paras 711]

For summoning a person under Section 319
Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction of the Court
must be much higher than a prima facie case,
though it need not reach the level required for
conviction. The existence of more than a prima
facie case is a sine qua non. [Paras 10-11]

In matrimonial and dowry death cases, relatives
of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely on
the basis of general, vague, and omnibus
allegations of dowry demand and harassment.
Courts must exercise caution and ensure that
specific allegations with particulars are disclosed
against such relatives. [Paras 12-15]

In the present case, although opposite parties
nos. 2 to 4 were named in the F.I.R., they were
exonerated
during
investigation,
and
the
charge-sheet was filed only against the husband
of the deceased. The depositions of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 did not disclose any new, specific, or
distinct role of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4
beyond the allegations already made in the
F.I.R. [Paras 16-17]