Allahabad High Court
Harsh Singh And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:52706 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 980 of 2025 Harsh Singh And 8 Others .....Revisionist(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) :
Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
G.A. Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the judgment and order dated impugned order dated 08/08/2025 passed in S.T. NO. 22/2025 titled "State versus Shailesh Singh and others" by the Additional Session Judge, Room No.4/ Special Judge E.C. Act, Ayodhya by which he has rejected the application for discharge moved by the revisionists in most illegal, arbitrary manner, and also without applying his judicial mind.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be stay the further proceeding of in S.T. NO. 22/2025 titled ?State versus Shailesh Singh and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 229/2023, U/S- 147/148/323/504/506/452/325 I.P.C. P.S.-Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya, in the interest of justice."
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists, impeaching the order dated 08.08.2025, in nutshell is to the effect that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were not grievous in nature and as such, adding Section 308 IPC is not justified and therefore the revisionists ought to have been discharged and in not doing so the court committed error of law and fact both and in this view of the matter the indulgence of this Court is required.
4. It is further stated that the revisionists filed discharge application u/s 250 B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 227 Cr.P.C.) for discharging them for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C., but the same was rejected by learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge, EC Act, Ayodhya vide order dated 21.08.2025. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the instant revision.
6. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
7. This Court also deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 308 IPC, which reads as under:
"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.
Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
8. It is clear from the reading of the Section itself that to constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC, the following conditions should be fulfilled:
(a) that a person does an act;
(b) that the act is done with an intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
(c) that the person concerned commits the offence under such circumstances that in case the act so done by that person causes death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
(d) in case hurt is caused while committing this offence, the person concerned shall be awarded enhanced punishment.
9. Therefore, Section 308 IPC does not make it mandatory that for an offence to be covered under Section 308 IPC, hurt should have been caused by that person. Causing hurt is, therefore, not an essential condition to attract the provisions of Section 308 IPC.
10. The second part of Section 308 IPC further explains that in case hurt is caused to any person by an act falling within the purview of section 308 IPC, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both.
11. There is no confusion regarding the settled position of law and the definition of Section 308 IPC itself that causing hurt by the act committed under Section 308 IPC and no hurt being caused are both covered under Section 308 IPC itself, attracting different punishments. What is crucial to note while deciding a case at the stage of charge under Section 308 IPC is that the act should have been caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that in case said act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
12. In Tukaram Gundu Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 1 SCC 465, where none of the injuries had affected any vital part of the body and it was doubtful whether the accused had intended to commit murder of the victim, the Apex Court attributed only knowledge that by inflicting such injuries, he was likely to cause death and it was held that an attempt to such an offence would be punishable u/s 308 I.P.C.
13. Causing of hurt is not relevant for this purpose. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. NCT of Delhi, 1998 8 SCC 557, the relevant portion reads as under:
"4. The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC........."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishan Singh & another V State, AIR 2008 SC 131, observed as under:-
"18. In Bishan Singh & another V State, AIR 2008 SC 131 the surviving accused were tried and convicted for commission of offences under sections 147 and 308/149 IPC. As per the complainant, the accused persons allegedly assaulted him with lathis and took out a sum of Rs.400/- from his pocket. The injuries suffered by the complainant as per the injury report are as under:-
1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on scalp at right parietal region, 14 cm above the right eye-brow. Scalp deep. Fresh bleeding present.
2. Lacerated wound 5 cm x = cm x scalp deep on scalp, at right parietal area, 19 cm above the right eye-brow.
3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x < cm x skin deep, 4 cm above the right eye-brow at right forehead, 6 cm x 7 cm swelling around the wound.
4. Abrasion 1 cm x = cm, at upper lip, 3 cm from the right angle of the mouth. 4/1 Abrasion 1 cm x = cm at lower lip right angle of mouth.
5. Contusion mark 10 cm x 5 cm above right shoulder reddish in colour. Swelling 2 cm around the wound.
6. Contusion mark 6 cm x 6.5 cm on above and front and middle of left arm, 13 cm below the shoulder joint 1 cm swelling around the injury.
7. Contusion 12 cm x 10 cm at fore-arm, 8 cm from the left wrist joint = cm swelling around the injury.
8. Complain of pain in both lower legs and thigh, but no injury seen.
The injuries except one injury were simple. The injured deposed that his head was wounded and his shirt was full of blood. The Trial Judge relying on or on the basis of the testimony of the witness convicted the appellants for commission of an offence under Sections 147 and 308/149 IPC. It was observed that The Trial Judge did not notice the ingredients of Section 308 IPC which provides for existence of an intention or knowledge. The High Court also dismissed the appeal and opined that it is established that the intention of the accused persons was to commit culpable homicide. They had enmity with the injured. Threats were also given to him by the accused to ruin his life. Injuries were also caused on scalp. The Supreme Court was observed as under:-
Before an accused can be held to be guilty under Section 308 IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was existing. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. They had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been attributed against each of the accused who were having lahtis, only seven injuries had been caused and out of them only one of them was grievous, being a fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part of the body.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Chand v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1353, observed as under:-
"5. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the offence committed by the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 308 or 324 of IPC?
6. Section 308 of IPC provides that "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"; and in case any hurt is caused to any person by such act, then "the accused is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
7. Therefore, to secure conviction under Section 308 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had requisite 'intention' or 'knowledge' to cause culpable homicide, which in turn can be ascertained from the actual injury as well as from other surrounding circumstances.
8. Section 324 of IPC, on the other hand, criminalises willful infliction of injuries on another and states that whoever "voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death", would be punished with "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
9. In contrast to Section 308 IPC, which necessarily requires proving 'intention' or 'knowledge', to attract Section 324 IPC it is sufficient if a person voluntarily causes hurt by means of an instrument for stabbing or cutting.
10. It is thus crucial to determine whether the appellant had 'intention' or 'knowledge' that the injury inflicted on the victim could cause the latter's death and as a result thereto the appellant could be guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder."
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference. It is for the reason the case of hurt/ injury and no hurt/ injury both are covered under Section 308 IPC and intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder could be considered after evidence is adduced before the trial court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) September 3, 2025 Anand/-