# Inder Singh Rajpoot & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 275
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5396 of 2024
- **Bench:** Divesh Chandra Samant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/inder-singh-rajpoot-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52774
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Sessions
Judge,
Jhansi
committed
any
illegality,
irregularity, or jurisdictional error in rejecting the
discharge application filed by the revisionists u/s
227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether,
at the stage of consideration of discharge, the
materials placed on record disclosed sufficient
ground for presuming the commission of
offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506
and 325 of Penal Code so as to justify the
framing of charges and continuation of the
criminal trial, thereby warranting or negating
interference by High Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction u/ss. 397/401 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 307,
323, 504, 506, 325 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s. 227 - The instant
criminal revision arises out of an incident
alleged to have occurred on 02.07.2023,
pursuant to which Opposite Party No. 2
lodged an FIR on 03.07.2023 against the
revisionists under various sections of
Penal Code, alleging assault and firing
during
a
group
altercation
-
Upon
investigation,
medical
examination
of
injured
persons
was
conducted,
statements of witnesses were recorded,
and a charge-sheet was submitted on
03.08.2023, whereafter cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to
Court of Sessions - The revisionists moved
an application for discharge u/s 227
Cr.P.C.,
contending
false
implication,
absence
of
motive,
contradictions
between medical and ocular evidence, and
non-attraction of s. 307 Penal Code - The
learned Sessions Judge by order dated
26.07.2024,
rejected
the
discharge
application, holding that the material on
record disclosed sufficient grounds to
proceed, which order has been assailed by
revisionists
in
the
instant
criminal
revision.

Held: It has often observed that when an
application is filed challenging the rejection of
the discharge application, the subsequent order
of framing charge is simply a logical outcome
and any relief granted on the revision would
necessarily set aside the charge - The label of
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petition is often immaterial if the substance
of the challenge is against the continuance of
the trial - The revision against the rejection of
discharge application is not necessarily required
to be amended after framing of charge - From
the perusal of impugned order shows that there
is FSL report on the Trial Court record about the
recovery of two empty cartridges of 315 bore
from the place of occurrence and a country
made pistol along-with a live cartridge of 315
bore was recovered from the accused Ravindra
while searching him by the Police officials and
the accused Ravindra had stated to the Police
that two rounds firing was made by him but no
one
injured
-
The
other
evidence
also
insinuating
occurrence
as
alleged
-
The
arguments of the learned counsel for the
Revisionists that there was no firearm injury
caused to any one and the offence u/s 307
Penal Code is not made out, is baseless - There
are several facts and evidences are available on
record and truthfulness of the allegations on the
basis of evidence can only be ascertain by the
trial of the case - The learned Trial Court by
referring several case laws has rightly rejected
the discharge application of accused - No
illegality in impugned order, revision lacks merit,
dismissed. [Paras 7, 8, 15, 19, 20] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
 Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977)
4 SCC 551; Hari Kishan and State of Haryana
v. Sukhbeer Singh and others, 1988 (4) SCC
551; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram &
Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 26 - referred to

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

List of Keywords
Criminal
revision;
Discharge
application;
Rejection of discharge; Framing of charge;
Sessions Judge; Cognizance; Commitment to
Court of Sessions; Charge-sheet; Investigation;
FIR; Medical examination; Injured persons;
Statements of witnesses; Material on record;

## Text

11 All. Inder Singh Rajpoot & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
275
passed by Court below, convicting the
accused/appellants under Section 302 IPC
read with Section 149, 147 and 148 I.P.C.
cannot be sustained.

124. As a result, the present appeals
succeed and are liable to be allowed.

125. They are, accordingly, allowed in
the manner mentioned below.

126. The conviction and sentence
awarded
to
accused/appellants
under
Sections 302/149, 147 & 149 I.P.C. by
Court below shall stand modified to one
under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. All the
accused are, therefore, sentenced to 14
years rigorous imprisonment. The amount
of fine awarded by Court below against
accused is sustained. In case of default, the
coercive measures as directed by Court
below shall become applicable. All the
accused/appellants
shall
be
released
provided they have undergone the sentence
awarded by us and further, if they are not
required in respect of any other offence.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 275
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5396 of 2024

Inder Singh Rajpoot & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Om Prakash

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Sessions
Judge,
Jhansi
committed
any
illegality,
irregularity, or jurisdictional error in rejecting the
discharge application filed by the revisionists u/s
227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether,
at the stage of consideration of discharge, the
materials placed on record disclosed sufficient
ground for presuming the commission of
offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506
and 325 of Penal Code so as to justify the
framing of charges and continuation of the
criminal trial, thereby warranting or negating
interference by High Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction u/ss. 397/401 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 307,
323, 504, 506, 325 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s. 227 - The instant
criminal revision arises out of an incident
alleged to have occurred on 02.07.2023,
pursuant to which Opposite Party No. 2
lodged an FIR on 03.07.2023 against the
revisionists under various sections of
Penal Code, alleging assault and firing
during
a
group
altercation
-
Upon
investigation,
medical
examination
of
injured
persons
was
conducted,
statements of witnesses were recorded,
and a charge-sheet was submitted on
03.08.2023, whereafter cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to
Court of Sessions - The revisionists moved
an application for discharge u/s 227
Cr.P.C.,
contending
false
implication,
absence
of
motive,
contradictions
between medical and ocular evidence, and
non-attraction of s. 307 Penal Code - The
learned Sessions Judge by order dated
26.07.2024,
rejected
the
discharge
application, holding that the material on
record disclosed sufficient grounds to
proceed, which order has been assailed by
revisionists
in
the
instant
criminal
revision.

Held: It has often observed that when an
application is filed challenging the rejection of
the discharge application, the subsequent order
of framing charge is simply a logical outcome
and any relief granted on the revision would
necessarily set aside the charge - The label of
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petition is often immaterial if the substance
of the challenge is against the continuance of
the trial - The revision against the rejection of
discharge application is not necessarily required
to be amended after framing of charge - From
the perusal of impugned order shows that there
is FSL report on the Trial Court record about the
recovery of two empty cartridges of 315 bore
from the place of occurrence and a country
made pistol along-with a live cartridge of 315
bore was recovered from the accused Ravindra
while searching him by the Police officials and
the accused Ravindra had stated to the Police
that two rounds firing was made by him but no
one
injured
-
The
other
evidence
also
insinuating
occurrence
as
alleged
-
The
arguments of the learned counsel for the
Revisionists that there was no firearm injury
caused to any one and the offence u/s 307
Penal Code is not made out, is baseless - There
are several facts and evidences are available on
record and truthfulness of the allegations on the
basis of evidence can only be ascertain by the
trial of the case - The learned Trial Court by
referring several case laws has rightly rejected
the discharge application of accused - No
illegality in impugned order, revision lacks merit,
dismissed. [Paras 7, 8, 15, 19, 20] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
 Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977)
4 SCC 551; Hari Kishan and State of Haryana
v. Sukhbeer Singh and others, 1988 (4) SCC
551; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram &
Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 26 - referred to

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

List of Keywords
Criminal
revision;
Discharge
application;
Rejection of discharge; Framing of charge;
Sessions Judge; Cognizance; Commitment to
Court of Sessions; Charge-sheet; Investigation;
FIR; Medical examination; Injured persons;
Statements of witnesses; Material on record;
Sufficient ground; Presuming commission of
offence; Trial; Revisional jurisdiction; Illegality;
Irregularity; Jurisdictional error; Interference;
Truthfulness of allegations; Offence u/s 307
Penal Code; Intention; Knowledge; Prima facie
case; Satisfaction of Court; Dismissal of revision
Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 5396 of 2024

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2024
passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session
Case No. 565 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 204 of
2023

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Revisionist:
Om Prakash

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Divesh Chandra
Samant, J.)

Order on Amendment Application
No.1 of 2025

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

2. As per office report, notice has been
served upon opposite party no.2 but no one
is appeared on his behalf.

3. An amendment application has been
moved on behalf of the Revisionists on the
ground that this Criminal Revision has
been
filed
against
the
order
dated
26.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge whereby discharge application has
been rejected and the matter was fixed for
after lunch for framing of charge. Same day
after lunch the charges were illegally
framed for the offence under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and
prayed to amend the prayer to quash the
order of passing charge dated 26.07.2024
passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi.

4. It is a matter of procedure that
where the Court rejects the discharge
application it inherently means the Court is
11 All. Inder Singh Rajpoot & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
satisfied that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed offence.
Consequently, the Court proceeds to frame
the charges. The rejection of discharge and
subsequent
framing
of
charge
are,
therefore, sequential and consequential
actions. A successful challenge to the
rejection of discharge logically results to
the setting aside of the charge framed
thereafter.

5. In the landmark case of Madhu
Limaye versus State of Maharashtra,
(1977) 4 SCC 551, the Supreme Court held
that the order framing charges or refusing
to discharge an accused are not purely
'interlocutory order' and then not barred by
the prohibition contained in Section 397(2)
Cr.P.C. They are considered 'intermediate'
or
'quasi-final'
orders
because
they
substantially affect the rights of accused.

6. This case law implicates that since
the order of rejecting discharge is revisable,
and the order of framing of charge is the
immediate consequence, a revision filed
against the former can encompass a
challenge to the latter.

7. The standard practice in the High
Court is to allow such amendment
application by converting the prayer from
challenging rejection of discharge to
framing of charge. The High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 /
401 Cr.P.C. or its inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can look into entire
record to ascertain the correctness, legality
or propriety of the order. Even that the
grounds
for
rejecting
discharge
are
precisely grounds for framing charge,
therefore, the High Court's scrutiny remains
the same. The conversion is simply a
matter of correcting the record and
ensuring the entire challenge is adjudicated.
It has often observed that when an
application is filed challenging the rejection
of the discharge application, the subsequent
order of framing charge is simply a logical
outcome and any relief granted on the
revision would necessarily set aside the
charge. The label of the petition is often
immaterial if the substance of the challenge
is against the continuance of the trial.

8. Therefore, in view of the above, the
revision against the rejection of discharge
application is not necessarily required to be
amended after framing of charge.

9.
Accordingly,
the
amendment
application is disposed of.

Order on Revision

10. The present criminal revision has
been filed against the judgement and order
dated 26.07.2024, passed by Sessions
Judge, Jhansi in Session Case No.565 of
2024, arising out of Case Crime No.204 of
2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station
Babina, District Jhansi by which the
learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi has rejected
the
discharge
application
of
the
Revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

11. Brief facts given rise to the present
case are that an incident took place on
02.07.2023 between the parties. Thereafter
medical examinations were conducted of
the injured persons and Opposite Party no.2
has lodged an FIR on 03.07.2023 against
the present Revisionists in Case Crime
No.204 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police
Station Babina, District Jhansi with regard
to the aforesaid incident. After lodging the
FIR, Police has started the Investigation
and
recorded
the
statements.
After
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completion of investigation, charge sheet
has been submitted against the Revisionists
on 03.08.2023 and learned Magistrate has
taken the cognizance and committed the
case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
Thereafter on 28.05.2024 the Revisionists
has moved a discharge application under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions
Judge, Jhansi. On 26.07.2024, the learned
Sessions Judge, Jhansi has rejected the
discharge application of the Revisionists.

12.
Being
aggrieved
with
the
impugned order dated 26.07.2024, the
present criminal revisions has been filed.

13. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the Revisionists that the
Revisionists have been falsely implicated in
the present case due to village party bandi.
The injured have received injuries due to
fallen from motor cycle. The revisionists
have no motive to assault the injured persons.
The discharge application of the Revisionists
has been rejected in arbitrary manner without
considering the evidence on record. No
specific role has been assigned against any
Revisionist. Revisionists have never been
previously implicated in any other criminal
case. There are many contradictions between
the medical version and prosecution version.
The injuries are not in grievous nature or
dangerous for life, therefore, no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out against
the Revisionists. The impugned order dated
26.07.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge,
Jhansi is illegal arbitrary and against the
settled principle of law, therefore, the same
may be quashed.

14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed
the arguments made by learned counsel for
the Revisionists and submitted that the
impugned order is just and proper,
therefore, there is no need to interfere.

15. From the perusal of impugned
order dated 26.07.2024 shows that there is
FSL report (Paper No.9-A) on the Trial
Court record about the recovery of two
empty cartridges of 315 bore from the place
of occurrence and a country made pistol
along-with a live cartridge of 315 bore was
recovered from the accused Ravindra while
searching him by the Police officials and
the accused Ravindra had stated to the
Police that two rounds firing was made by
him but no one injured. The other evidence
also insinuating occurrence as alleged.

16. It has been vehemently argued,
referring the medical evidences collected
during investigation that the injuries said to
be caused is simple in nature. None of the
injury is grievous in nature and neither
dangerous for life, therefore, no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out. In this
regard, it is important to mention that to
constitute offence under Section 307 IPC
i.e. attempt to murder, it cannot be
ascertain merely on the basis of injuries
only.

17. In the case of Hari Kishan and
State of Haryana versus Sukhbeer Singh
and others, 1988 (4) SCC 551, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that:-

"Under Section 307 IPC what the
Court has to see is, whether the act
irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention
or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances mentioned in that section.
The intention or knowledge of the accused
must be such as is necessary to constitute
murder. Without this ingredient being
established, there can be no offence of
"attempt to murder". Under Section 307
IPC
the
intention
precedes
the
act
attributed to the accused. Therefore, the
intention is to be gathered from all
11 All. Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sunder Lal & Ors.
279
circumstances, and not merely from the
consequences that ensue."

18. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Versus Kashiram & Ors., 2009
(4) SCC 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that it is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 IPC :-

"If there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury
capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its
result, if any. The Court has to see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the Section.
Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted
merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

19. Therefore, in view of the above case
laws, the arguments of the learned counsel
for the Revisionists that there was no firearm
injury caused to any one and the offence
under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is
baseless. There are several facts and
evidences are available on record and
truthfulness of the allegations on the basis of
evidence can only be ascertain by the trial of
the case. The learned Trial Court by referring
several case laws has rightly rejected the
discharge
application
of
the
accused
Revisionists by passing the impugned order.

20. Thus in view of the above
discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity
or jurisdictional error committed by the
Court below in passing the impugned order
and the Revisionists are not able to make
out a fit case, so as to justify interference
by this Court by granting any relief under
the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No
interference is warranted.

21. Revision lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 279
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1298 of 2010

Nitin Kumar Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
Sunder Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Arun Kumar Shukla, Harinank Mauli Vikram
Dwivedi, Harish Chandra Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had correctly and lawfully
assessed the quantum of compensation payable
to the claimant, or whether the award suffered
from
inadequacy
due
to
erroneous
determination of the claimant's monthly income,
incorrect appreciation of the nature and extent
of permanent disability, improper assessment of
functional disability vis-à-vis loss of earning
capacity, wrongful deduction towards personal
expenses, and failure to award compensation
under
appropriate
heads
such as
future
prospects,
attendant
charges,
pain
and
suffering, and loss of amenities, thereby
warranting enhancement of compensation in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
facts of the case are that on 27.10.2006
the
claimant,
Nitin
Kumar
Tiwari,