At the Stage of Framing Charges, Defense Evidence or Alleged Improvements in Witness Statements Cannot Justify Discharge.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 19/12/2025 by the CJM, Bhind, framing charges under Sections 296 and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that on 01/10/2025, the petitioners assaulted the complainant over a prior dispute. Specifically, Pratap Chauhan allegedly used a "chheni" (chisel) to strike the complainant’s jaw, resulting in tooth luxation and loosening, while Jogendra Chauhan inflicted stick blows

The petitioners contended that the "chisel" theory was a later improvement, the injuries were initially attributed to fist blows, and the police ignored exculpatory digital evidence (a pen drive) provided by the defense

1. Whether the defense's claims of version improvement by the complainant and the existence of exculpatory digital evidence (pen drive) can be considered by the court at the stage of framing of charges.

2. Whether the material on record prima facie justified the framing of charges under Section 118(2) of the BNS.

The Court primarily applied the principles of charge framing under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to the BNSS)

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, which established that at the framing stage, the court should not conduct a "mini-trial" or "roving inquiry" but only evaluate if a prima facie case or "grave suspicion" exists against the accused

Under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of patent illegality or perversity

The Court reasoned that at the stage of framing charges, the judicial role is limited to assessing the prosecution's record to see if the ingredients of the offense are met

Regarding the discrepancy in weapon descriptions, the Court noted that an FIR is not an "encyclopedia" and the subsequent medical opinion by Dr. Birtariya specifically corroborated that the dental injuries could be caused by an iron chisel

Furthermore, a 14.50 cm chisel was recovered based on Pratap Chauhan's memorandum statement

The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the pen drive, holding that defense material cannot be considered at this stage as per established criminal jurisprudence; such evidence must be tested during the trial

The court found that the medical evidence (X-ray and dental report) confirming "luxation of teeth" sufficiently supported the gravity of the charge under Section 118(2)

The High Court upheld the CJM’s order dated 19/12/2025, finding no illegality or perversity in its reasoning. The criminal revision was dismissed at the admission stage, and the trial court was directed to proceed on merits without being influenced by the observations in this revision