Dismissed¶¶17

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026CRLR/285/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj, J. — Criminal Revision No. 285 of 2026 (CRLR), decided April 20, 2026. Charge-framing challenge; discharge application dismissed below. Offences: Sections 323/34, 324/34, 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 553 of 2023, P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Budaun; Session Trial No. 1709 of 2025 before Special Judge POCSO Act. Points: suspicion sufficient at stage of framing charges; discrepancy in date of occurrence (14.10.2023 vs medical record 13.10.2023); subsequent addition of Sections 324/308 IPC; four-day delay in FIR; six injuries on injured Lavi Patel; revision dismissed, no merits, no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of framing of charges only suspicion is enough; this being settled law, the sufficiency of material need only rise to the level of suspicion. ¶¶16

Jitendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the discrepancy in the date of occurrence (prosecution witnesses stating 14.10.2023 against the medical record of the injured dated 13.10.2023) and the subsequent addition of offences under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. entitled the petitioners to discharge. +2 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The variation in the date of occurrence (14.10.2023 per witnesses versus medical record dated 13.10.2023) cannot be attached much significance at the stage of framing of charges; given the background, particularly the nature of injuries, it would not be a case for discharge and the prosecution deserves the opportunity to bring home the guilt of the accused.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of framing of charges only suspicion is enough; this being settled law, the sufficiency of material need only rise to the level of suspicion.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The revision petition lacks merit: the medical record collected during investigation reflects that the injured Lavi Patel suffered six injuries in all, supporting the framing of charges.ratio¶¶12
Considering the nature of allegations and the contents of the F.I.R. wherein the petitioners are named, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 26.11.2025; the trial court carefully analyzed the record while proceeding to frame charges.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision dismissed against order dated 26.11.2025 of the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 3, Budaun framing charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. in Session Trial No. 1709 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 553 of 2023, P.S.-Civil Lines, Budaun). Held: (i) at the stage of framing of charges only suspicion is enough; (ii) variation in the date of occurrence (14.10.2023 per prosecution witnesses versus medical record dated 13.10.2023) cannot be attached much significance at that stage, and given the nature of injuries — the injured Lavi Patel having suffered six injuries — it is not a case for discharge, the prosecution deserving opportunity to bring home the guilt; (iii) the petitioners being named in the F.I.R. (lodged 18.10.2023 after a delay of 4 days) and the trial court having carefully analyzed the record, no case for interference was made out. Dismissed without expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 285 of 2026

¶3

Jitendra And 2 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another	.....O
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Devendra Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Ravindra Sharma
Court No.- 85

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶9

Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment/order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 3, District-Budaun in Session Trial No. 1709 of 2025 (State of U.P. versus Jitendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2023 under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Budaun whereby the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place on 14.10.2023 whereas the medical record of the injured is dated 13.10.2023. He further submits that some of the witnesses described the date of occurrence as 14.10.2023 whereas some have stated that it took place on 13.10.2023. According to the learned counsel, the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. were added subsequently.

¶11

That apart, it is emphasized that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 4 days on 18.10.2023, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, and their application seeking discharge has been erroneously dismissed by the trial court, and charges have been framed against them.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering his submission, this Court does not find any merit in the revision petition as the medical record collected during investigation reflects that one of the injured, namely, Lavi Patel has in all suffered six injuries.

¶13

CRLR No. 285 of 2026

¶14

¶15

That apart, the variation in the date of occurrence at the stage of framing of charges cannot be attached much significance as in the given background of the case, particularly, the nature of injuries, it would not be a case for discharge of the accused as prosecution deserves opportunity to discharge its onus to bring home the guilt of the accused person.

¶16

By now, it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges only suspicion is enough, therefore, considering the nature of allegations, contents of the F.I.R. wherein the petitioners are named, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the trial court. A reading of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the record of the case while proceeding to frame charges against the petitioner.

¶17

Accordingly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶18

April 20, 2026 SY

¶19

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema vs Rahul and Another

Sandeep Puniya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakshmi Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mazhar Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kumar Tharad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another