Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1020 (ALL)

Yogendra v. State of U. P.

2023-04-13

JYOTSNA SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. None responds for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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. 8. The criminal revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.