Allahabad High Court
Ramu @ Ramkumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185242
AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1335 of 2023
Ramu @ Ramkumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, none is present on his behalf.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
3. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Kanpur Dehat in Session Trial No. 1506 of 2021 (State of Sarvesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat whereby discharge application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.256 of 2016 under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, namely, Sarvesh @ Guddu, Arvind @ Lalla and Ramu @ Ramkumar. On the basis of written tehrir the incident took place on 30.6.2016 at about 10 A.M., his uncle Awadhehs Kumar Pandey was ploughing his field with a tractor when the accused persons came armed with lathi and pharsa due to prior enmity. It was alleged that they abused and assaulted the injured with said weapons, causing him to fall unconscious. Initially the medical examination of the injured Awadhesh Kumar Pandey was conducted on 30.06.2016 at 12:05 P.M., in which seven injuries were found on his body. Out of them, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were lacerated wounds caused by blunt object and injury Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were incised wounds caused by sharp object. The doctor opined that all injuries were simple in nature, and none were found grievous or life-threatening. The injured was referred for X-ray, but the injured himself got his CT scan done, the supplementary report also confirmed the same. There is no evidence of any grievous or life-threatening injury that could attract Section 308 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statement of informant as well as several other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. all the witnesses belonging to the same family. It was also submitted that no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The allegations of assault with lathi and pharsa are concocted to harass the revisionist. Hence, it is contended that no offence under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, and 506 I.P.C. is made out against them. The trial court, however, rejected the discharge application in a mechanical and casual manner, without appreciating the contradictions, medical opinion, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the revision and submitted that the investigation was conducted fairly and properly. The statements of the informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. support the prosecution version and clearly attribute a role of assault to the revisionist and co-accused. The learned A.G.A. pointed out that the medical examination of the injured was conducted on 30.06.2016 at 12:05 P.M., the injured has sustained seven injuries, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were lacerated wounds caused by blunt object and injury Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were incised wounds caused by sharp object. The Court concerned 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the FIR specifically attributes active participation to the revisionist and his co-accused in assaulting the injured with lathi and pharsa. The statements of the informant/opposite party No.2 and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Officer wherein the role of assault has been attributed to the revisionist and other co-accused persons. The medical report reveals that the injured sustained seven injuries, two caused by blunt object and three by sharp object. All the offences for which discharge application was rejected, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
11. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the revisionist during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
October 14, 2025/Md Faisal
