The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence at the time of framing of charges.

ORDER : – Counsel for the applicant is heard on the question of admission.

2. The applicant has filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the validity of the order dated 22-11-2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Sessions Judge, District Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 974/2021 whereby the charge has been framed against the applicant by the trial Court under sections 294, 333, 353, 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code and under section 25-1(B)(B) of Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance to an FIR lodged on 7-8-2021 (Annexure A/2) offence under sections 294, 333, 353 and 307 of Indian Penal Code got registered against the present applicant. He submits that thereafter the injured died of septicaemia on 20-8-2021. He further submits that as per the facts of the case, after registration of FIR, the injured got hospitalized and was given treatment in Govt. Hospital, i.e. Jai Prakash Govt. Hospital in which the MLC was prepared showing that the complainant/injured had received an incised wound which was opined as simple injury. The injured was later on discharged from hospital on the same day, i.e. 7-8-2021 because the injury sustained by him was neither grievous in nature nor dangerous to life. He submits that the applicant was granted bail under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by this Court vide order dated 4-1-2022 considering the fact that the injury was simple. A copy of bail order is filed on record as Annexure A/3 which indicates that the applicant was arrested on 7-8-202 for causing simple injury to the injured and the report of MLC was also seen by the Court referring the same in the order of bail. But later on, when complainant/injured died on 20-8-2021, offence of 302 was also added. He submits that under the circumstances when the injured got discharged from hospital on the same day, but later on, because of septic, which as per doctor was the cause of death of injured, offence of 302 of Indian Penal Code is not made out as it was due to negligence on the part of the doctors as they have not properly treated the injured and medication was not up to the mark. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this fact was argued before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge, but the trial Court did not appreciate the facts in appropriate manner and observed that the cause of death was related to the injury sustained and caused by the present applicant. However, he submits that the trial Court should have considered the fact that the injury was caused on 7-8-2021 and on the same day, injured was given treatment and was also discharged from the hospital showing that the injury was simple in nature, but because of negligence or without there being any proper medication, if septic is developed and after almost 13 days of the incident, the injured died due to septicaemia, the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because by and large, the death cannot be connected with the injury caused by the present applicant and according to him, offence under section 302 is not made out and therefore, he has assailed the order of trial Court framing charge of section 302 against the present applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein he has emphasised on paragraph 21 which reads under : –

“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge : – (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure 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 has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would