Shabbu Shabbu Ali and others .....Revisionists v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Case No.1116 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned trial court framed charges against the Revisionists for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Revisionists seek setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not made out from the material on record.

2. The State’s case, in brief, is that on 28.11.2022 at about 9:30 p.m., an altercation took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital, wherein the accused persons allegedly assaulted the injured using a sharp-edged weapon. On the basis of the written information lodged by the informant, FIR No. 397 of 2022 was registered initially under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The injured was taken to the hospital and was medically 1 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. examined, whereafter further medical and supplementary reports were prepared.

3. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC and medical documents relating to the injuries sustained by the injured were collected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against Revisionists for the aforesaid offences.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, whereupon the learned trial court, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the material placed before it, passed the impugned order dated

16.11.2024 framing charges against the Revisionists under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the framing of the charge, particularly under Section 307 IPC, the Revisionists have approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision, asserting that the injuries are simple in nature, that the medical evidence does not support an offence of attempt to murder, and that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record properly.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionists submitted impugned order dated 16.11.2024 suffers from non-application of judicial mind, as the learned trial court has framed charges under Section 307 IPC without appreciating the medical and supplementary medical reports describe the injuries as simple in nature. It was contended that none of the injuries were declared 2 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. dangerous to life or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence of attempt to murder are conspicuously absent.

8. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that the State case is founded on conjectures and exaggerations and that the Revisionists have been falsely implicated due to a prior monetary dispute and personal animosity. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer acted in a biased manner by selectively relying upon a subsequent medical report while ignoring material favourable to the defence, including the injuries allegedly sustained by the Revisionists themselves.

9. According to learned counsel, these circumstances clearly indicate that the State’s version is doubtful and unreliable.

10. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further submitted that mere use of a sharp-edged weapon does not automatically attract Section 307 IPC in the absence of clear material to demonstrate intention or knowledge to cause death. It was urged that compelling the Revisionists to face trial for such a serious offence, despite the absence of prima facie material, would result in grave prejudice and abuse of the process of court, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the criminal revision and submitted that the impugned order framing charges has been passed strictly in accordance with the settled principles governing the stage of framing of charge. It was contended that the learned trial court has neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor 3 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. ignored any material available on record, and that no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.

12. Learned State counsel further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists against the accused, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. It was argued that a roving inquiry into the defence version is wholly impermissible at this preliminary stage.

13. The learned State counsel further submitted it that the FIR, statements recorded during the investigation and the medical material prima facie disclose that the incident involved a deliberate assault with a sharp-edged weapon, and the same is sufficient to justify framing of charge under Section 307 IPC, leaving all disputed issues to be decided during trial.

14. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 also opposed the criminal revision and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It was contended that the allegations disclose a serious offence and that the learned trial court has rightly proceeded to frame charges upon due consideration of the material on record.

15. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that the use of a deadly weapon, the manner of assault and the surrounding circumstances are crucial factors for determining the applicability of Section 307 IPC at the stage of framing of charge. It was emphasised that the intention or knowledge of the accused cannot be judged solely 4 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. on the basis of the final medical opinion and must be inferred from the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that the contention of the Revisionists that the injuries are simple in nature is misconceived. It was argued that the nature of injury alone is not determinative, as even an act resulting in simple injury may amount to an attempt to murder if it is accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge, which is a matter for trial.

17. It was also contended by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the pleas raised by the Revisionists regarding false implication, monetary dispute, counter-version and alleged bias on the part of the Investigating Officer raise disputed questions of fact. Such pleas, according to learned counsel, require an appreciation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses and cannot be examined in revisional jurisdiction against an order framing charge.

18. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the learned trial court has rightly formed an opinion that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the Revisionists. It was urged that interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution, and accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

19. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to test the veracity of the State’s case. 5 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.

20. The court is only to examine whether the material placed on record discloses a prima facie case or gives rise to a grave suspicion against the accused. If such suspicion exists, the matter must proceed to trial, and the defence of the accused is to be tested only after evidence is led.

21. In the present case, the FIR and the statements of witnesses prima facie disclose that the incident involved a deliberate assault with a sharp-edged weapon. The use of such a weapon, the manner of assault, and the surrounding circumstances are relevant considerations for the purpose of Section 307 IPC. At this stage, the Court cannot isolate the medical opinion from the factual matrix, nor can it conclusively determine the intention or knowledge of the accused, which is essentially a matter to be inferred from evidence during trial.

22. The contention of the Revisionists that the injuries are simple in nature and, therefore, Section 307 IPC is not attracted cannot be accepted at this stage. It is well settled that the nature of injury by itself is not determinative of the applicability of Section 307 IPC. Even an injury ultimately opined to be simple may fall within the ambit of attempt to murder if the act was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, had death been caused, the offence would amount to murder. Whether such intention or knowledge existed is a matter to be decided upon appreciation of evidence during trial.

23. The pleas raised by the Revisionists regarding false implication, existence of a counter-version, monetary dispute and alleged bias on the part of the Investigating Officer are matters of defence. These pleas raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in 6 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. revisional jurisdiction at the stage of framing of charge. Entertaining such pleas at this stage would amount to a premature evaluation of evidence, which is impermissible in law.

24. This Court finds that the learned trial court has duly considered the material available on record and has rightly formed an opinion that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the Revisionists. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Interference at this stage would result in stifling a legitimate prosecution and would be contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, this Court finds no merit in the present criminal revision. The impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, framing charges against the Revisionists under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Ashish Naithani, J.

01.12.2025 7 Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.