Charge framing requires only strong suspicion based on prima facie material, not meticulous evidence appreciation.

The complainant, Rupesh Singh Rajput, alleged that on June 14, 2025, he was accosted by three individuals: Omkar Dhankar (a juvenile), Ailes Yadav, and Varun.

The accused allegedly used abusive language, and Omkar stabbed the complainant in the abdomen with a knife while the applicants assaulted him with their hands and fists.

The victim’s statement recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS further alleged that the juvenile took the knife from applicant Arun and that the group acted in concert.

A chargesheet was filed under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial court, vide order dated December 22, 2025, discharged the applicants from the Arms Act charges but refused to discharge them under Section 109 (Attempt to murder) read with Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the BNS.

The applicants moved the High Court in revision against this refusal.

1. Whether there is sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the applicants under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Whether the court can evaluate the defense of the accused or conduct a meticulous examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges.

The court applied Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding discharge in sessions cases.

At the stage of framing charges, the court focuses on whether there is a "strong suspicion" of the offence rather than proof of allegations (State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796).

The trial court should only evaluate if the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the offence without conducting a mini-trial or roving inquiry (State of M.P. v. Deepak, 2019 (13) SCC 62 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, 2020 (2) SCC 290).

The court rejected the applicants' contention that they played no role in the stabbing, noting that at the stage of framing charges, the defense of the accused cannot be considered as it would contravene criminal jurisprudence.

Upon perusing the victim's statement under Section 181 of the BNSS, the court found specific allegations that the applicants acted in concert, issued death threats, and that one applicant (Arun) provided the weapon to the juvenile.

The court reasoned that such evidence, if taken as true at this initial stage, establishes a prima facie case of attempt to murder committed with common intention.

The court emphasized that the final test of guilt or the evaluation of evidence through cross-examination is a matter for trial, not for the discharge stage.

Directing that the defense's version must be tested during the trial, the court found no illegality in the trial court's order refusing discharge.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed at the admission stage.