Vijay Lakshmi, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur in Case No. 2066 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2006, State v. Murasad and others, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history and the F.I.R. lodged against them is a counter blast of Case Crime No. 17 of 2006, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, which has been instituted from the side of the revisionists against opposite parties. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 5.2.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the observations of court below in order dated 5.2.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in the injury report of Nasir Khan, fracture of tooth alongwith other injuries was found by the doctor concerned. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that in wake of the injury report and the other prima facie evidence available against the revisionists both of whom are named in the F.I.R., the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) THE impugned order shows that the court below has discussed in detail about the prima facie evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned.;