Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4904 of 2022

Revisionist :- Riyazudddin And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A

for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the

order dated 01.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Pilibhit in Session Trial No. 1263/2022, (Case Crime No.

420/2021), State Vs. Riyazuddin and 3 Others, under Sections

504, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit,

whereby the application filed by the accused-revisionists under

Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge of offence under Section 308

IPC has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the

impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be

set aside. The first information report of this case was lodged

under Sections 504, 323 I.P.C. making false and baseless

allegations. It was pointed out that in x-ray report of injured Ata

Mohammad, no bony injury was shown but later on the injured

obtained a CT Scan report from private hospital, wherein

fracture of temporal bone was shown. The said report has been

issued by a private hospital and it was not to be used for

medico-legal purpose. Referring to the facts of the matter, it

was submitted that the said report is thoroughly unreliable and

thus no prima facie case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out

against the revisionists but the court below has not considered

the facts and evidence in correct perspective and committed

error by rejecting application of revisionists for discharge under

Section 308 I.P.C.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and

argued that in x-ray report though no bony injury was shown

but the injured was advised CT Scan of skull and thereafter CT

Scan of skull of injured has been conducted, wherein the

fracture of temporal bone has been shown. Referring to the

facts of the matter and material collected during investigation, it

was submitted that a prima facie case under Section 308 IPC is

made out against the revisionists. It was further submitted that

the trial court has considered all relevant facts and material

while rejecting the application of revisionists for discharge and

there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or

considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse

reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and

its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial.

Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain

of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration

of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an

assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution

is true and such material and documents have to be considered

with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such

material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of

all the ingredients constituting the offence.

7. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39],

considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it

was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not

obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a

sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be

incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that

stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground

for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end

in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of

framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that

event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for

proceedi