Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Abid – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Abid to quash the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in case crime no. 113 of 2020, under Sections 323 , 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nehtour, District Bijnor whereby the Magistrate concerned proceeded to frame charge in the matter.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. Admit.
4. The facts of the case are that NCR dated 20.2.2020 registered against the revisionist was converted into F.I.R. bearing case crime no. 113 of 2020 under Sections 323 , 504 and 325 IPC on 12.4.2020 and after investigation charge sheet was also submitted for the said offences. The revisionist appeared before the trial court and was released on bail, however, vide order dated 18.4.2025 the Court concerned held that charge should be framed under Section 308 IPC alongwith offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.
5. Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that
Charges for culpable homicide require clear evidence of intent or knowledge; grievous injuries alone do not suffice to support such charges under IPC Section 308.
Accused cannot maintain application under Section 128(1)(a), Cr.P.C. for transferring case from Court of Sessions to a Court of Magistrate on the ground that no offence under Section 308, I.P.C. is m....
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
At the charge framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused.
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
The court retains discretion to alter charges as needed regardless of complainant's requests, emphasizing the independence of judicial decision-making.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
Attempt to murder – Nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether act of assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not.
Criminal Law – Offence of Attempt to commit culpable Homicide - Revision petition – Whether accused had intention or knowledge that injuries inflicted on the victim would cause death and as a result ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
