# Chandrabhan & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 614
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1578 of 2023
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrabhan-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50253
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 308 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 227 - Against rejection of
discharge application - Contention by
revisionist that FIR was lodged u/s 325,
323 & 504 IPC only - Injury report of
injured reveals there was no serious injury
- Section 308 & 506 IPC added in chargesheet - Discharge application - Rejected -
Persons of revisionist's side has suffered
injuries and cross-case was registered
against complainant side - Held, the
revisionists-accused are named in FIR -
Prosecution case was that accused hurled
abuses wife of complainant and assaulted
her, when some persons came to rescue,
they were assaulted, causing injuries -
One of injured has suffered serious head
injury, his NCCT Brain Report shows
extradural
hemorrhage
and
fractures,
which may be fatal - Both parties lodged
report against each other and which party
was
aggressor,
a
matter
of
trial
-
Sufficient evidence against revisionist - No
illegality in impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 5,
6)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

## Text

614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observation. If the learned trial court
proceeds to release the impugned rifle,
before releasing the impugned rifle, the
concerned Magistrate/SHO shall verify as
to whether the revisionist is valid licensee
of the impugned rifle or not. It shall also be
verified that the impugned rifle had been
purchased by the revisionist in accordance
with law and that the revisionist has an
upto date rifle licence on the date of release
of the impugned rifle or not. If the
revisionist succeeds in establishing the fact
that he is the valid licensee, the impugned
rifle had been purchased by him in
accordance with law and he has valid upto
date licence at the time of release of the
impugned
rifle,
the
impugned
rifle
mentioned above would be released in his
favour if he further executes a personal
bond and two sureties of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 614
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1578 of 2023

Chandrabhan & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 308 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 227 - Against rejection of
discharge application - Contention by
revisionist that FIR was lodged u/s 325,
323 & 504 IPC only - Injury report of
injured reveals there was no serious injury
- Section 308 & 506 IPC added in chargesheet - Discharge application - Rejected -
Persons of revisionist's side has suffered
injuries and cross-case was registered
against complainant side - Held, the
revisionists-accused are named in FIR -
Prosecution case was that accused hurled
abuses wife of complainant and assaulted
her, when some persons came to rescue,
they were assaulted, causing injuries -
One of injured has suffered serious head
injury, his NCCT Brain Report shows
extradural
hemorrhage
and
fractures,
which may be fatal - Both parties lodged
report against each other and which party
was
aggressor,
a
matter
of
trial
-
Sufficient evidence against revisionist - No
illegality in impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 5,
6)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed against the order dated 21.02.2023
passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Lalitput in S.T. No.481 of 2022 crime
no.189 of 2020 U/s 308/34, 325/34, 323/34,
504 & 506 IPC P.S. Mehrauni, District
Lalitpur. By the impugned order, the
learned court below has rejected the
discharge application filed U/s 227 Cr.P.C.
by the revisionist accused.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
contended that FIR of this case was lodged
U/s 325, 323 & 504 IPC only. The injury
report of the injured reveals that there is no
serious injury which may come in the
purview of Section 308 ICP. The injury of
Anshul is lacerated wound of size 3 cm
5 All. Chandrabhan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
615
skin deep. So from this injury, no offence
U/s 308 IPC is made out. Only one injured
has suffered a fracture. All the injuries of
remaining injured are simple in nature. So
at the most, offence U/s 323, 325 & 504
IPC is made out. The Investigating Officer
in improper manner has added section 308
& 506 IPC in the charge-sheet. The
revisionist have filed an application 5 kha
for discharge. It is also contended that
persons of revisionist's side has also
suffered injuries and the cross-case NCR
No.200 of 2020 U/s 323 & 504 IPC was
also registered against the complainant
side. The real story is that several civil and
revenue litigations are pending between the
parties and due to this enmity, the
complainant side has attacked the accused
side. The complainant has suffered injuries
while fleeing from the spot and they have
got registered a false FIR. The learned
court below without considering the
averments
made
in
the
discharge
application and the evidence available on
record,
has
rejected
the
discharge
application. The impugned order is unjust
and improper and is not sustainable.

4. Learned AGA submitted that one
of the injured Anshul has suffered head
injury and his NCCT Brain Report shows
extradural
hemorrhage
and
fracture.
Several other persons have also suffered
injuries in this incident. So there is no
ground to discharge the revisionist accused.
From the evidence on record, offence U/s
323, 325, 308, 504 & 506 IPC is made out.
There is no illegality in the impugned
order.

5. The revisionists-accused are named
in the FIR and prosecution case is that they
hurled abuses to Smt. Ram Dulari the wife
of the complainant and started to assault
her, when Anshul, Narendra, Anantram,
Prabhudayal,
Maherndra
Kumar
and
Devendra came to rescue, then the accused
persons also assaulted them with lathidanda causing injuries. The injury reports
of Narendra Kumar, Mahendra Kumar,
Devendra Kumar, Prabhudayal, Smt. Ram
Dulari and Anshul are part of the record.
Injured Prabhudayal, Smt. Ram Dulari and
Anshul has suffered head injuries. It also
appears from the perusal of the record that
injured Anshul was referred to medical college
Jhansi and his NCCT Brain Report mentions
extradural
hemorrhage,
sub
arachanoid
hemorrhage, FEW FOCI of hemorrhage
contusions, associated fractures. His C.T. scan
report also indicates non-displaced fracture at
right temporal bone. So it is clear from the
injury report of Anshul that he has suffered
serious head injuries which may be fatal.

6. It also appears from the material on
record that there are cross-versions. Both
the parties have lodged report against each
other and which party is aggressor, is a
matter of trial. So this cannot be a ground
for discharge.

7. Section 308 IPC provides as
follows:

"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."

8. Section 308 IPC consists of two
parts. The first part deals with the cases of
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no injury while the second part reveals,
cases in which injury has been caused. So
what is material is intention or knowledge.
Even in a no injury case, section 308 IPC
may apply. It is settled law that at the stage
of framing of charge only prima-facie case
is to be seen. The remaining things are
matter of trial and can be judged after
evidence. While in this case one of the
injured has suffered serious head injury. So
there is sufficient evidence on record
against the revisionist-accused on the basis
of which charges in section mentioned in
the charge-sheet can be made. So there is
no sufficient ground to discharge.

9. The learned court below has
narrated the averments of the discharge
application, the facts of the case, the
evidence available on record and after
analyzing it, has come to the conclusion
that there is no sufficient ground to
discharge the accused and has rejected the
discharge application. The impugned order
is detailed and reasoned one. There is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order.

10. Accordingly the revision is devoid
of merits and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 616
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3020 of 2022

Deependra & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Rahul Mehrotra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Satyaveer Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 354 Kha & 376/511 -
POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 7/8 - Against
summoning
order
-
Allegation
that
accused assaulted complainant's minor
daughter, causing her injuries - Charge
sheet submitted against one accused -
During
trial,
prosecution
moved
application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon
other
named
accused
-
Application
allowed - Held, specific allegations that
they committed offence with co-accused -
Specific role has been assigned to them -
Brother and nephew of complainant are
named as eye witnesses - Her medico
legal report corroborated allegations of
FIR - The victim in her St.ment u/s 161
and
164
Cr.P.C.
has
corroborated
allegations and complicity of revisionist
with specific role - Complainant and two
witnesses
named
in
FIR
supported
allegations - The Investigating Officer on
the basis of St.ments of independent
witnesses regarding presence of accused
at somewhere else has exonerated them -
Case of attempt to rape - Her St.ment
can't be ignored on the basis of St.ment of
witnesses who have deposed that two of
accused were not present at place of
occurrence - Impugned order needs no
interference. (Para 3, 6)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Brijendra Singh Vs St. of Rajasthan, 2017 0
Supreme (SC) 411

2. Sudhir Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (Criminal Revision
No. 415 of 2022, decided on 06.07.2022)

3. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 2014
Supreme Court page 1400, (Para 98 and 99)

4. Rajendra Singh Vs St. of UP, A.I.R. 2007 SC
2786