At the stage of framing charges, prima facie material and CCTV footage outweigh the absence of a Test Identification Parade.

The Applicants challenged an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, framing charges under Sections 296, 109(1), 3(5), 125, and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

An FIR was lodged alleging that the accused persons, including one identified as Yuvraj Gurjar and others with covered faces, arrived at a stone crusher plant and fired gunshots at the complainant following a previous enmity.

Bullets hit the office wall and glass, but no injuries were sustained.

The prosecution relied on witness statements and CCTV footage showing the firing.

The Applicants contended that Rohit Baghel was not named in the FIR, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the act of firing in the air did not constitute an attempt to murder under Section 109(1) BNS.

1. Whether the trial court erred in framing charges under Section 109(1) of the BNS when no physical injury was caused and the allegation involved firing in the air.

2. Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the non-mention of an applicant's name in the FIR are sufficient grounds to quash charges at the framing stage.

The Court applied the principles governing the framing of charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu (2023), which establishes that at the stage of framing charge, the court must only determine if a prima facie case exists and form a presumptive opinion based on whether the factual ingredients of the offence are present.

The court is not required to conduct a roving inquiry or evaluate the probative value of evidence in a manner sufficient for conviction.

Scope of revisional power under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, emphasizing it should only correct manifest errors of law or procedure that cause injustice.

The Court observed that the statements of the complainant and eyewitnesses (Ram Kumar, Gajraj Singh, Brij Kishore) explicitly stated that gunshots were directed at the complainant, who escaped only by ducking to the floor.

The recovery of 11 empty cartridges and CCTV footage showing the applicants firing gunshots provided sufficient material to suggest a prima facie case under Section 109(1) BNS.

The Court rejected the defense that the incident was merely "firing in the air," noting that the bullets hit the office wall where the complainant was situated.

Regarding the lack of TIP and the absence of Rohit Baghel’s name in the FIR, the Court held these are matters of evidence to be weighed during the trial and cannot be used to quash charges when other incriminating materials like CCTV footage and witness statements exist.

The court answered that at the stage of framing charge, a prima facie case was established via witness statements and CCTV footage.

The trial court's order dated 02.09.2025 in S.T. No. 61/2025 was upheld.