Allahabad High Court
Deepu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:192516
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 820 of 2023
Deepu And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Gauri Shanker Mishra, Sandeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Manoj Kumar Maurya
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2022 (State Vs. Deepu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 138 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station Lar, District Kanpur Deoria whereby discharge application moved u/s 227 Cr.P.C. by the revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged against six named persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 307 I.P.C. During investigation, allegations against four persons were found false and accordingly dropped their names. The charge-sheet was submitted only against two persons, namely, Deepu and Mithlesh (revisionists), under Sections 323, 324 and 308 IPC. After submission of the charge-sheet, the revisionists filed a discharge application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. before the court below, which has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that the present FIR was lodged on the basis of written tehrir given by Kusum Devi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Lar, District Deoria against six named persons namely, Deepu, Pappu, Mithilesh, Raju, Mantosh and Vijaynath. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of prosecution witnesse and, after completion of investigation, found that the allegations against four persons to be false and accordingly dropped their names. The charge-sheet was submitted only against the present revisionists/accused, under Sections 323, 324 and 308 IPC. As per the FIR version, the accused persons are stated to have attacked Sanjay who is husband of the complainant, with sharp edged weapon, rods and sticks but there is not even a single scratch on his body. There is no medical report in this regard, which itself shows that the allegations made in the FIR were exaggerate and not supported by the evidence.
5. It is further submitted that Chandriaka, who is father-in-law of the complainant is a person of criminal background. He causes nuisance in inebriated state shouting that if anyone would oppose him, he would get him falsely implicated like the revisionists. It has been submitted that no motive has been mentioned in commission of the crime the complaint is an eye witness of the case and the present FIR has been lodged after a delay of five days. The prosecution has been failed to explain this delay. It has been submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place due to old enmity by no evidence regarding any enmity has been collected by the I.O.
6. It is further submitted that the alleged injured, namely Sanjay Kumar is stated to have got his father medically treated after the incident. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons in the FIR and presence of accused persons were found to be false, which it shows that the present revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that private medico-legal of the alleged injured Chandrika Prasad is stated to have done on 17.6.2018 at 10:30 p.m. wherein he has received two incised wounds on the head. The injured was referred to District Hospital Deoria for X-ray where the injuries were found to be simple in nature and the X-ray was NAD. On the basis of the medical evidence available on record, no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the revisionists. The court below, however, rejected the discharge application without considering the medical report and without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. have opposed the revision and submitted that the investigation in the present case was conducted in a fair and proper manner. It is contended that the FIR contains specific allegations of assault against the accused persons, and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. fully support the prosecution version and clearly attribute the act of assault to the accused persons. It is further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the court below is only required to consider the charge-sheet, the statements recorded during investigation, and the medical evidence to determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. In the present case, a prima facie case under Section 308 IPC was made out. The trial court after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.
9. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.
10. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.
11. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court/Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).
12. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into. If on the basis of materials on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. At the time of framing of charge the Court has to think prima facie whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that the husband of the complainant was attacked by the accused persons and grievous injuries were caused to him. When her father-in-law reached there, he was also assaulted and sustained grievous injuries on his head. The F.I.R. specifically attributes active participation of the present accused in assaulting the injured with a sharp-edged weapon. The statement of an independent witness, namely S.P., recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supports the prosecution version. The medical report further reveals that the injured sustained injuries.
14. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to Section 308 I.P.C., which reads as under:
"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, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
15. For reaching a conclusion whether an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out or not, the main ingredients are the intention or knowledge under which the act was committed. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have also stated that the injury was caused. The intention to cause injury can only be assessed at the time of trial. At the stage of framing of charge, it is only to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not.
16. The learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order, has clearly recorded a finding that a prima facie case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. The learned court below has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity. Accordingly, the prayer made in the present revision is refused.
17. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.) October 17, 2025 Md Faisal