Allahabad High Court
Maniraj Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 8 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:33317
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 530 of 2026
Maniraj Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Nisha Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 27
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in S.T. No. 890 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 0014 of 2023 under Section 460 IPC registered at P.S. Kohandaur District Pratapgrah
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is languishing in jail since January 24, 2023 i.e. from the very inception of the case. According to the FIR version, the informant, Smt. Shikha Yadav, wife of Mohit Yadav lodged an FIR in the police station concerned on January 24, 2023, at 13:25 hours on the basis of a written report against the revisionist, co-accused Manish Raj and two unknown persons with the allegation that on January 24, 2023, at around 2:50 in the morning, the accused trespassed into her house to commit robbery. Hearing commotion, her mother-in-law, Rani Devi @ Majju caught hold of the accused Maniraj. At that time, family members of the informant woke up, and electric light was flashing in the room and outside. She had seen with her own eyes that Maniraj inflicted several axe blows on her mother-in-law. Her condition was serious. She was taken to CHC and from there she was referred to Medical College, Pratapgarh, but she died on the way. The dead body was placed in her house. The police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the named person, Maniraj and Manishraj under Section 460 IPC.
4. At the stage of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the informant/ de facto complainant moved an application under Section 216 Cr.PC for adding a charge under Section 302/ 34 IPC, together with the charge under Section 460 IPC, on the basis of the sworn testimony of the witness, medical evidence and evidence of the investigating officer, it was established that the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, caused the murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed an objection to the application for alteration of the charge moved by the complainant under Section 216 CrPC, but the learned trial court has not considered the objection in the right perspective and allowed the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order dated March 6, 2026. The learned trial court has observed in the impugned order that on the basis of the evidence of PW1, Baby alias Sanjana Yadav, PW-2 Shikha Yadav, PW-3 Pankaj Yadav, and PW-4 Dr. Sachin Kumar Singh, who is the author of the post-mortem of the deceased, and other formal witnesses, it was found that, prima facie, there is sufficient ground to frame the charge to the effect that Maniraj gave axe blows to the deceased, thereby killing her mother-in-law. Even cross-examination of the witnesses has already been carried out on behalf of the accused persons. There are sufficient grounds to frame a charge under Section 302 IPC against Maniraj, the revisionist.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that after allowing application 26 (kha), partly in respect of the informant, the trial court dismissed the objection of the revisionist application 29 C and framed an additional charge under Section 302 IPC against the revisionist.
7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been granted bail for the charge under section 460 IPC by this court, but before his release on bail in respect to the said offense, the charge under section 302 IPC has also been added against him, due to which he is still languishing in jail because he is not on bail in respect of the additional charge under section 302 IPC. The learned trial court has declined to drop the charge under section 302 IPC against the accused person on the ground that there is specific allegations in respect of the commission of murder of the deceased against the revisionist.
8. learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submitted that the allegation against the revisionist for causing the death of the deceased while committing theft is covered under section 460 IPC and there is no occasion to frame an additional charge under section 302 IPC against the revisionist.
9. Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. submitted that in the FIR itself, there is specific allegations that when the deceased caught the revisionist in the process of committing theft, the accused gave axe blows to the deceased, resulting in her death due to fatal injury caused by him and on this fact, the charge under section 302 IPC is made out against the revisionist and there is no legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the court below.
10. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the material on record, the FIR version and the fact that there is specific allegation against the revisionist of causing the death of the deceased by giving axe blows while committing theft when she offered resistance. Therefore, I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The revision is devoid of force and deserves to be dismissed.
11. The criminal revision is dismissed accordingly.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) May 8, 2026 dk/