At the charge framing stage, a prima facie case suffices, and the court must assess overall material without delving into trial-level evidence disputes.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS , 2023’) challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby the petitioner has been charge-sheeted to face trial under Sections 109 (1) read with Section 61 (2), 126(2), 115(2) read with Section 190 , 117(2) read with , 140(3) read with Section 62 , 324(4), 351(2) read with and Section 191 (3) of the , 2023.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is that the FIR bearing No.128 dated 25.03.2025 was registered at Police Station City Sohna, District Gurugram, alleging that the petitioners alongwith other co-accused had attacked the complainant on 22.03.2025 with an intention to kill pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy. Immediately after the alleged occurrence, the complainant was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Sohna and was thereafter referred to Artemis Hospital. During the course of investigation, certain Sections were added and deleted from the FIR. The petitioner No.1 and co-accused Mohit Adana were arrested on 29.03.2025 and petitioner No.2 was arrested on 06.04.2025. The alleged motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a workplace dispute between the complainant and co-accused Mohit Adana at Maruti Pasco Sales Service Company where both were previously employed. According to the police, a prior altercation during a strike in January 2025 and a subsequent scuffle on 21.03.2025 purportedly led to the incident in question. The medical opinion opined that some injuries were grievous in nature which led to addition of Section 109 (1) of BNS . The petitioners, however, alleged that the allegations are false, exaggerated and unsupported by cogent evidence. Relying upon the medico opinion-legal report and supplementary medical opinion, the Court below framed the impugned charges.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that even on a bare perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the MLR of the complainant, no ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 109 BNS , 2023 are made out. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant has primarily suffered grievous injuries on his legs which are neither fatal nor dangerous to life nor sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel has further submitted that merely because the petitioners are alleged to have inflicted injuries upon the complainant, the prosecution cannot mechanically infer intention or knowledge to cause death which is an essential pre-condition for invoking of . Learned counsel has further pointed out that one of the principal co-accused namely Sohit, who has specifically been alleged to have inflicted injuries with a sharp-edged weapon has been found innocent during the course of investigation. According to learned counsel, the Court below has failed to appreciate that the medical opinion relied upon for adding (1) does not support the prosecution case. Furthermore, the opinion of the doctor dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) clearly states that the fractures sustained by the complainant is not dangerous to life and hence the essential ingredients of (1) are not made out. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned trial Court erroneously proceeded to frame charges under (1) of , 2023, by ignoring the absence of medical to support such charge. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments titled as Sanjay and others vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-2289-2004 decided on 10.07.2019 and Atma Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1980 PLR, 719. Learned counsel has further submitted that the challan has been p