The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the stage of framing charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires only a prima facie case, not conclusive proof. The judgment clarifies that absence of Test Identification Parade or omission of an accused’s name in the FIR does not invalidate charge framing when other material, including eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage, supports the allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from an armed incident at Dev Shakti Stone Crusher in Bilaua, District Gwalior, on 24.05.2025. The complainant, Ramesh Prajapati, alleged that accused persons, including Rohit Baghel and another applicant, arrived in a white Scorpio vehicle and on a motorcycle, both with faces covered. They hurled abuses and fired gunshots from a katta (improvised firearm) toward the complainant, who took cover behind his desk. Bullets struck the office wall and glass. The accused then fired shots into the air and damaged the complainant’s vehicle, bearing registration MP07 ZS 1005.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 24.05.2025 at approximately 5:00 PM
- FIR Crime No. 69/25 was lodged on the same day at Police Station Bilaua
- Two accused were identified as Yuvraj Gurjar and Santosh Gurjar; two others remained unidentified at the time of charge sheet filing
- One accused, Yuvraj Gurjar, was declared a juvenile and dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act
- Investigation against Suraj Gurjar was kept pending at the time of charge sheet filing
- Eleven empty cartridges were recovered from the scene
- A firearm was recovered during investigation
- CCTV footage from the crusher premises was seized and formed part of the case diary
- Applicant No. 1, Rohit Baghel, was not named in the FIR and was not subjected to a Test Identification Parade (TIP)
- Witness statements were recorded from Ramesh Prajapati, Ram Kumar, Gajraj Singh Baghel, and Brij Kishore Patel
Procedural History
- 24.05.2025: FIR lodged at Police Station Bilaua
- 02.09.2025: Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, framed charges against applicants under Sections 296, 109(1), 3(5), 125, and 324(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- 24.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 4542 of 2025 heard and reserved
- 29.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior
The Parties' Positions
Applicants (Petitioners): Contended that no prima facie case existed under Section 109(1) BNS as no injury was caused; argued that firing in air only amounted to mischief; asserted that absence of TIP and non-inclusion in FIR rendered the charge sheet unsustainable; claimed false implication.
Respondent (State): Maintained that eyewitness accounts, recovered firearm, 11 cartridges, and CCTV footage collectively established a prima facie case; emphasized that TIP and FIR inclusion are not mandatory at the charge-framing stage.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the order dated 02.09.2025 framing charges against them, arguing that the proceedings were legally unsustainable and amounted to abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the framing of charges under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is legally valid when the accused is not named in the FIR and no Test Identification Parade has been conducted, provided other material such as eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage supports the allegations.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel argued that Section 109(1) BNS requires active abetment of a substantive offence, and since no person was injured, the act of firing in air could not constitute an offence under this provision. It was submitted that the absence of TIP for Applicant No. 1, Rohit Baghel, and his non-inclusion in the FIR rendered the charge sheet legally defective. Reliance was placed on the principle that charge framing must be based on credible, verifiable evidence, and that mere suspicion is insufficient. Counsel contended that the material on record, at best, disclosed an offence under Section 427 IPC (mischief), not the more serious charges framed.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the FIR, witness statements, recovered cartridges, firearm, and CCTV footage collectively established a prima facie case. It was emphasized that at the charge-framing stage, the court does not assess evidentiary weight or credibility, only whether the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the offence. The absence of TIP or FIR naming was argued to be a matter for trial, not a ground for quashing charges. The State relied on State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu to affirm that strong suspicion based on material is sufficient to frame charges.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the legal principles governing the framing of charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It emphasized that the stage of framing charges is not a trial, nor is it an inquiry into the reliability or probative value of evidence. The Court reiterated the settled position that the trial court must determine only whether a prima facie case exists, based on the material on record.
"At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out."
The Court observed that the complainant and three eyewitnesses consistently stated that gunshots were fired at the complainant, causing bullets to strike the office wall and glass. The CCTV footage corroborated the firing of weapons. The recovery of eleven cartridges and a firearm further substantiated the occurrence of a violent act. The Court held that even if the accused did not cause physical injury, the act of firing at a person with intent to cause harm satisfies the ingredients of Section 109(1) BNS, which criminalizes abetment of an offence.
Regarding the absence of TIP and non-inclusion of Rohit Baghel in the FIR, the Court held these are procedural irregularities that may affect the weight of evidence at trial but do not invalidate the framing of charges. The Court cited State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu to underscore that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the trial court’s discretion.
The Court further clarified that revisional power under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS is not appellate in nature. It is confined to correcting manifest legal errors or procedural defects that render proceedings illegal. Since the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and the material disclosed a prima facie case, no ground for interference existed.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The order dated 02.09.2025 framing charges against the applicants under Sections 296, 109(1), 3(5), 125, and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was upheld. The proceedings shall continue before the trial court. The Court directed that the trial be concluded expeditiously, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Evidence Trumps Procedural Gaps
- Practitioners must argue that absence of TIP or omission from FIR does not automatically invalidate charge framing if other credible material exists
- Courts will not quash charges merely because identification procedures were imperfect
- Focus must shift to whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the offence
Section 109(1) BNS Applies Even Without Injury
- Abetment under Section 109(1) BNS does not require the principal offence to be completed
- Firing a weapon at a person, even if no injury results, constitutes an attempt to commit grievous hurt and attracts abetment liability
- Prosecution need not prove actual harm to invoke Section 109(1)
Revisional Jurisdiction Is Narrow
- High Courts must not re-evaluate evidence or substitute trial court findings
- Revision is available only for manifest legal errors, not factual disputes
- Practitioners should avoid filing revision petitions as substitutes for appeals
