# Yogendra & Anr. Revisionists v. The State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 47 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-04-13 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4365 of 2022 - **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-anr-revisionists-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-49979 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 4 All. Yogendra & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. 47 India. Apart from this, in the impugned order by which the respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been granted remission in his sentence, there is no notice of the fact that he has a criminal history of 26 other criminal cases against him. As it has been held by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra) that where the Governor granted remission of sentence to a convict in ignorance of the fact that several other criminal cases were pending against him, the byproduct order cannot get the approval of law and in such cases, judicial hand must be stretched to it. 23. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that respondent no. 5, Man Singh was not entitled to remission of sentence as this case was covered by the prohibition no. (x) mentioned in above G.O. dated 01.08.2018 and while granting remission, his 26 other criminal cases was not brought to the notice of the Governor. 24. Thus, the impugned order dated 01.08.2018 by which respondent no. 5, Man Singh was granted remission of sentence was without authority of law and is liable to be set-aside. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned order no. 314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019, Lucknow dated 01.02.2019 granting remission to respondent no. 5, Man Singh is hereby quashed and set-aside. 26. The respondent no. 5, Man Singh shall surrender before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi within 30 days from today and he will be sent to Central Jail, Agra, to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. In case, the respondent no. 5, Man Singh does not surrender within the aforesaid period, the Sessions Judge, Jhansi will take coercive measure to ensure his appearance before the court and send him to Central Jail, Agra for undergoing his remaining sentence. 27. Copy of the order be sent to Sessions Judge, Jhansi for necessary compliance. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 47 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J. Criminal Revision No. 4365 of 2022 Yogendra & Anr. ...Revisionists Versus The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionists: Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A., Sri Devi Prasad Singh Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 227 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 308, 323, 324 & 506 - Criminal Revision - Challenging the order impugned by which the application of revisionist for discharging the accused was rejected - FIR u/s 323, 324 of IPC - allegation of physically assault - after investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 308, 324, 504 & 506 of IPC - Revisionists are aggrieved by order for framing charges u/s 308 of IPC in addition - plea taken by the revisionists that injuries sustained by the injured persons were not fatal in nature - Evaluation of Evidence - court finds that, from the contents of the FIR coupled with medical evidence, prima facie offence u/s 308 IPC is made out - at the stage of framing of charge no in depth enquiry into evidence or credibility thereto is required - hence, no any illegality or incorrectness in order so as to justify 48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES interference by Revisional court - Revision is dismissed. (Para - 6, 7) Criminal Revision is dismissed. (E-11) (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma, J.) 01. None responds for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. 02. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2022 by which the application moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging the accused persons for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was dismissed and case was posted for framing of charge. 03. The material facts are as below:- The F.I.R. against the applicants and two more has been filed under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. with the allegations that the accused persons were raising construction to encroach upon the land of Gram Samaj. The first informant and his brother protested. Irked over such interference accused persons physically assaulted the first informant Sanjay Tiwari and his brother causing them injuries. After investigation chargesheet has been filed under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 04. Perusal of the revision memo shows that the revisionists are aggrieved by order for framing charge under Section 308 I.P.C. in addition and rejection of discharge application. The only ground taken by the revisionist is that injuries sustained by the injured persons were not fatal in nature. There was not a single fracture on vital part of the person of any of the injured. 05. I went through material on record. Papers show that there were three injured persons namely Ramashankar Tiwari who sustained seven injuries on his person and four out them were above neck, Chandan Tiwari who sustained five injuries, with one on the head and the X-ray showed soft tissues shadow, mildly increased over vault of skull. The third Umashankar Tiwari sustained three injuries. 06. It is settled position that number of injuries or nature of injuries are not the sole factor to decide upon whether any and if so what offence affecting human body is made out. The intention or knowledge as the case may be and even attending facts and circumstances may be of even greater significance. 07. In my view, nature of the injuries, seat of injuries and number thereof may be material but are not everything to decide upon the fact as to which charge is made out. However, in this case from the contents of the F.I.R. coupled with medical evidence , prima facie offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out. At the stage of framing of charge no in depth enquiry into evidence or credibility thereto is required. I do not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the order so as to justify interference by revisional court. 08. The criminal revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 48 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 221 of 2023 Ahzam Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: