# Abid Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2619 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abid-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53707
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A., Manoj Kumar

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether trial court was
justified in exercising its jurisdiction to frame
charge u/s 308 IPC against revisionist, despite
investigation materials indicating only grievous
hurt and whether such framing of charge suffers
from illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind,
thereby warranting interference under revisional
jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 323, 504, 308 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 161
- Against framing of charge - Initially NCR
was
lodged
on
20.02.2020
against
revisionist,
which
was
subsequently
converted into FIR on 12.04.2020 u/s 323,
504 and 325 IPC - Upon completion of
investigation,
charge
sheet
for
said
offences was submitted and revisionist
appeared before trial court and was
granted bail - During consideration of
charge,
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate vide order dated 18.04.2025,
proceeded to frame charges not only u/s
323 and 504 IPC but also u/s 308 IPC on
basis
of
medical
opinion
indicating
fracture of nasal spine alleged to have
been caused by revisionist with danda -
Aggrieved thereby, revisionist preferred
instant criminal revision seeking quashing
of said order, pleading lack of intention or
knowledge
to
attract
ingredients
of
Section 308 IPC and contending that case
falls within purview of Section 325 IPC
only.
8 All. Abid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
463
Held: F.I.R. records that accused abused and
assaulted injured - In his Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, he corroborated F.I.R., stating that
revisionist struck his nose with danda, causing
bleeding and Sukkhan assaulted him with kicks
and fists, accompanied by verbal abuse -
Medical examination revealed four injuries, Xray and C.T. Scan advised for injury no.1, which
was later found to involve nasal spine fracture,
opined by doctor as grievous in nature - In the
instant case, evidence does not establish that
accused at any point of time had intention or
knowledge that assault could cause victim's
death - Had such intention existed, attack would
likely have been directed at head or any other
sensitive part and not upon his face where nasal
area is found - Though nasal injury caused by
danda is grievous, in view of seriousness of said
injury and nose is a vital part of human body,
this fact alone does not attract Section 308 IPC
- Evidence indicates intention to inflict grievous
injury, not to cause death - Hence, while nasal
injury is serious, it does not fall within ambit of
Section 308 IPC - Injury in this case, though
grievous u/s 320 IPC, falls within scope of
Section 325 IPC and does not extend beyond it -
Impugned order set aside, and matter is
remitted to Trial Court to frame charges against
revisionist in accordance with law. [Paras 12,
16, 18, 20] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC
398; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. The State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Sufiyan v.
State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Utt
1413 - referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Framing of charge; Statement of witnesses;
Arbitrary manner; Subject matter of evidence in
trial; Intention or knowledge to cause grievous
hurt; Fracture of nasal spine; Vital part of body;
Medical Officer; C.T. Scan report; Lack of
judicial mind; Injury report; Case diary; Limited
scrutiny at charge stage; Section 308 IPC;
Section 325 IPC; Matter remitted to trial court.
Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 2619 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2025
of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1, Bijnor in Case Crime No. 113 of 2020

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Manoj Kumar

## Text

462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement of the informant and other
persons. The appellant is languishing in jail
since 22.08.2021. Further submission is
that the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellants suffers from
infirmity
and
illegality
warranting
interference by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
the appellants are the main accused persons
along with other co-accused persons open
the Osam Infra Project Company, deposited
the money of informant and other persons.
They also prepare forged documents. The
appellants are having the criminal history
of 17 cases. In this way, the complicity of
the appellants in forgery with the informant
and other persons is made out, therefore,
the appellants are not entitled for bail.

5.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
entire record including the impugned order
carefully.

6. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, severity of
punishment, the statement of the injured as
recorded before his death, there is no new
ground to enlarge the appellant on bail.
There is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned order passed by the learned
Special Judge SC/ST Act, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is,
hereby, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 462
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2619 of 2025

Abid ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Manoj Kumar

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether trial court was
justified in exercising its jurisdiction to frame
charge u/s 308 IPC against revisionist, despite
investigation materials indicating only grievous
hurt and whether such framing of charge suffers
from illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind,
thereby warranting interference under revisional
jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 323, 504, 308 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 161
- Against framing of charge - Initially NCR
was
lodged
on
20.02.2020
against
revisionist,
which
was
subsequently
converted into FIR on 12.04.2020 u/s 323,
504 and 325 IPC - Upon completion of
investigation,
charge
sheet
for
said
offences was submitted and revisionist
appeared before trial court and was
granted bail - During consideration of
charge,
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate vide order dated 18.04.2025,
proceeded to frame charges not only u/s
323 and 504 IPC but also u/s 308 IPC on
basis
of
medical
opinion
indicating
fracture of nasal spine alleged to have
been caused by revisionist with danda -
Aggrieved thereby, revisionist preferred
instant criminal revision seeking quashing
of said order, pleading lack of intention or
knowledge
to
attract
ingredients
of
Section 308 IPC and contending that case
falls within purview of Section 325 IPC
only.
8 All. Abid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
463
Held: F.I.R. records that accused abused and
assaulted injured - In his Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, he corroborated F.I.R., stating that
revisionist struck his nose with danda, causing
bleeding and Sukkhan assaulted him with kicks
and fists, accompanied by verbal abuse -
Medical examination revealed four injuries, Xray and C.T. Scan advised for injury no.1, which
was later found to involve nasal spine fracture,
opined by doctor as grievous in nature - In the
instant case, evidence does not establish that
accused at any point of time had intention or
knowledge that assault could cause victim's
death - Had such intention existed, attack would
likely have been directed at head or any other
sensitive part and not upon his face where nasal
area is found - Though nasal injury caused by
danda is grievous, in view of seriousness of said
injury and nose is a vital part of human body,
this fact alone does not attract Section 308 IPC
- Evidence indicates intention to inflict grievous
injury, not to cause death - Hence, while nasal
injury is serious, it does not fall within ambit of
Section 308 IPC - Injury in this case, though
grievous u/s 320 IPC, falls within scope of
Section 325 IPC and does not extend beyond it -
Impugned order set aside, and matter is
remitted to Trial Court to frame charges against
revisionist in accordance with law. [Paras 12,
16, 18, 20] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC
398; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. The State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Sufiyan v.
State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Utt
1413 - referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Framing of charge; Statement of witnesses;
Arbitrary manner; Subject matter of evidence in
trial; Intention or knowledge to cause grievous
hurt; Fracture of nasal spine; Vital part of body;
Medical Officer; C.T. Scan report; Lack of
judicial mind; Injury report; Case diary; Limited
scrutiny at charge stage; Section 308 IPC;
Section 325 IPC; Matter remitted to trial court.
Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 2619 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2025
of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1, Bijnor in Case Crime No. 113 of 2020

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Manoj Kumar
(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. The present criminal revision has
been preferred by the revisionist - Abid to
quash the impugned order dated 18.4.2025
passed
by
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in case
crime no. 113 of 2020, under Sections 323,
504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nehtour,
District Bijnor whereby the Magistrate
concerned proceeded to frame charge in the
matter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for
the State and perused the material available
on record.

3. Admit.

4. The facts of the case are that NCR
dated 20.2.2020 registered against the
revisionist was converted into F.I.R.
bearing case crime no. 113 of 2020 under
Sections 323, 504 and 325 IPC on
12.4.2020 and after investigation charge
sheet was also submitted for the said
offences. The revisionist appeared before
the trial court and was released on bail,
however, vide order dated 18.4.2025 the
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court concerned held that charge should be
framed under Section 308 IPC alongwith
offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.

5. Assailing the impugned order, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that he has been falsely
implicated in this case. From the contents
of NCR/FIR and also the statement of
witnesses it is crystal clear that there was
no intention or knowledge on the part of
the revisionist to make assault upon the
injured that if his act caused death of the
injured he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and
more over the doctor, who medically
examined the injured, stated in his
statement before the Investigating Officer
that the injury sustained by the injured was
not fatal at all. It is further submitted that
the essential ingredients to establish the
offence under Section 308 IPC are lacking
on the basis of evidence on record.

6. The next argument is that the trial
court in an arbitrary manner while hearing
on the point of framing of charge suo moto
opined that the injury was termed grievous
in nature as per the statement of the
Medical Officer and the C.T. Scan report. It
is also submitted that the supplementary
report available on record shows a fracture
on nasal spine which was not a vital part of
the body. It is further submitted that in the
impugned order the Magistrate concerned
wrongly interpreted the law on the subject.
The opinion expressed by the concerned
Magistrate whether the accused person had
intention or knowledge to cause death of
the deceased by his assault was the subject
matter of the evidence in trial and it was
also wrongly held that the nose is a vital
organ of the body and assault upon the
same may have proved fatal.

7. Another limb of the argument is that
the Court concerned has totally discarded
the legal principles governing the matter of
framing of charge and passed the impugned
order to face trial under Section 308 IPC as
well alongwith Sections 323 and 504 IPC
whereas the present case does not travel
beyond the scope of Section 323, 504, 325
IPC and offence Section 308 IPC is not
made out at all. The present prosecution
has been instituted with a malafide
intention.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further pointed out certain documents and
statements on record in support of his
contention and urged that the impugned
order suffers from infirmity, illegality and
lack
of
judicial
mind
warranting
interference by this Court.

9. Repudiating the submissions made
above, the learned AGA and learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
and
submitted that the nature of injuries, which
were caused on the vial part of the body,
the injury report, the C.T. Scan report and
other relevant document clearly establish
that charge under Section 308 IPC was a
natural outcome in the light of the aforesaid
evidence and it was not a case only under
Section 325 IPC. Though charge sheet was
submitted for the offence under Sections
323, 325 and 504 IPC but it was well
within the jurisdiction of the trial court to
frame the charges for the offences which
were prima facie made out from the perusal
of the case diary and materials collected by
the I.O. during course of investigation. The
impugned order does not suffer from
infirmity, illegality, perversity or lack of
judicial mind and revision deserves to be
dismissed.
8 All. Abid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
465

10. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
entire record carefully.

11. In connection with the issue
involved herein and before dealing with the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, it is desirable to quote the
provisions of Section 308 IPC, which are as
under :

"Section
308.
Attempt
to
commit culpable homicide .- Whoever
does any act with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both, and if hurt is caused
to any person by such act, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both."

12. In this case in the F.I.R. itself it
has been mentioned that the accused
persons hurled abuses and assaulted the
injured Anas. In his statement under
Section 161 CrPC the injured Anas has
supported the F.I.R. version and has further
stated that Abid made an assault upon his
nose with the aid of danda due to which his
nose started bleeding and accused Sukkhan
assaulted him with kicking and fisting.
Accused persons also hurled abuses. The
injured was medically examined at PHC
Nahtaur, Bijnor and four injuries were
found upon his body. X-ray and C.T. Scan
was advised for injury no.1. In the
supplementary report fracture of nasal
spine was found and the doctor opined the
said injury as grievous in nature.

13. The parameters for framing of
charge and discharge are well settled by a
catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan
vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
held that the Judge is not a mere post office
to frame charge at the behest of the
prosecution but has to exercise his judicial
mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing
this fact, it is not necessary for the court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or
into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the
function of the Court, after the trial starts.

14. In the case of Dilawar Balu
Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that in exercising powers under
Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, the settled position of law is
that the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charge under the
said section has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has
been made out and whether the materials
placed before the Court discloses grave
suspicion against the accused which has not
been properly explained to the Court, then
in such a case the Court will be fully
justified in framing the charge and proceed
with the trial. On the other hand, if the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before the Court gives rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion
then the Judge will be fully justified in
discharging the accused.

15. Moreover, at the stage of framing
charges
a
meticulous
and
in-depth
examination of the evidence is not required.
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The court is only concerned to determine as
to whether there is a prima facie case,
meaning a sufficient ground to proceed
with the trial or not. A detailed assessment
of the evidence's credibility or a conclusive
finding of guilt is not necessary at this
stage.

16. The definition of Section 308 IPC
establishes the essential contents to bring
home the charges for the said offence. It is
must to show that the accused had such
intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that he by his act causes
death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In the
instant matter the evidence on record is not
sufficient to show that the accused /
revisionist at any point of time was having
such intention or knowledge that the assault
might cause death of the injured. Had it
been so, he could have made an assault
upon his head or any other sensitive part of
the body and not upon his face where the
nasal area is found. No doubt the injury
upon the nose of the injured caused by use
of 'danda' may be termed as 'grievous
injury' in view of the seriousness of the
said injury and nose is a vital part of
human body but this fact alone is not
sufficient to bring the act of the accused
into the ambit of Section 308 IPC. It
appears from the evidence collected by
the
Investigating
Officer
that
the
intention or knowledge on the part of the
accused was to inflict grievous injury but
it does not denote the intention or
knowledge on the part of the accused /
revisionist that he by such act might
cause death of the injured. A nasal injury,
as found in the case in hand, was no
doubt a serious injury as reflects from the
medical reports but it is incapable to
bring the offence under the cover of
Section 308 IPC.

17. Reference may be taken of a
judgment of Uttaranchal High Court in
Sufiyan vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023
SCC OnLine Utt 1413, wherein in almost
similar circumstances the injured was
examined by a Medical Board, it has been
held that the injuries suffered by the injured
were a 'fracture in parietal bone' and a
'fracture in nasal bone' but it was opined
that the injuries were in fact grievous in
nature but they were never fatal to life.
Almost same situation is existing in the
present matter.

18. In the case in hand it appears from
the evidence on record at this stage that the
accused might have kept an intention or
knowledge to cause grievous hurt to the
injured, as defined in Section 320 IPC but
there is no evidence on record to show,
even prima facie, that the accused on any
point of time was having any intention or
knowledge to do away with the deceased
by his act of blow. The hurt caused in the
instant matter may be grievous in nature
and may be kept under the cover of Section
320 IPC which defined the grievous hurt
and the instant matter does not travel
beyond the scope of Section 325 IPC.

19. In view of the above, from a
perusal of the material available on record
and keeping in view the facts of the case, in
my view, at this stage it cannot be said that
offence under Section 308 IPC is made out
against the revisionist. No evidence has
been collected against the revisionist during
the course of investigation to establish the
offence under Section 308 IPC. At this
stage, the evidence on record falls short of
establishing the requisite ingredients of
Section 308 IPC. The Court concerned
erred in passing the impugned order. I find
force in the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the revisionist. The
8 All. Phool Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
467
impugned order suffers from illegality,
infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial
mind. The criminal revision deserves to be
allowed and the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.

20. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is allowed and the impugned order dated
18.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in
case crime no. 113 of 2020, under Sections
323, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nehtour,
District Bijnor is set aside and the matter is
remitted to the trial court with the direction
to proceed to frame charges against the
revisionist in accordance with law and in
the light of the observations made in the
present judgment.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 467
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3324 of 2025

Phool Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Avanish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to whether trial court committed
any legal error in rejecting accused's application
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further crossexamination
of
five
already-examined
prosecution witnesses, when said application did
not specify what material questions were left
and
when
evidence
stage
had
already
concluded.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 307,
324,
504,
506
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
ss.
311,
313
-
Revisionist assailing judgment and order
dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307,
324, 504, 506 IPC, whereby application
filed
by
accused/revisionist
u/s
311
Cr.P.C.
seeking
recall
of
prosecution
witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 for further crossexamination was rejected by trial court on
grounds
that
all
nine
prosecution
witnesses had already been extensively
cross-examined
and
application
was
vague and lacking in specific reasons -
Revisionist contended that some relevant
questions had inadvertently remained to
be asked prior to stage of recording
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., while trial
court
observed
that
no
substantive
explanation
was
furnished
to
show
necessity
for
recall
and
that
such
application appeared to be attempt to fill
up lacuna in case.
Held: Court is not bound to exercise its power
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. merely because application has
been filed by a party - Power under this
provision is discretionary and cannot be claimed
as matter of right - It should be invoked only
when Court finds that recalling or re-examining
witness is essential for just decision of case -
The term "just decision" underscores principle of
fair trial and proper settlement of dispute
between
the
parties
-
Therefore,
while
exercising this power, Court must act with
caution to ensure that application is not
intended merely to fill lacuna in party's case but
is really essential to pass a justifiable order - In
view of legal principles governing Section 311
Cr.P.C., application filed by accused before Trial
Court merely states that examination of P.W.1
to P.W.5 is complete, but some relevant
questions
remain
to
be
asked,
seeking
permission for their further cross-examination in
interest of justice - Undoubtedly, application is
vague, as it neither specifies material questions
allegedly left unasked during cross-examination