Allahabad High Court
SHAMBHU PASWAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The High Court held that a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC exists and there is no illegality in the Sessions Judge's order, thus dismissing the revision.
Summary
The revision petition filed by Shambhu Paswan and others challenged a Sessions Judge's order rejecting their application under Section 251 of the BNSS. The petitioners argued that there was no injury sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC and that the order was arbitrary. The State contended that the victims, including Mukesh Paswan, sustained head injuries verified by CT scan, establishing a prima facie case of attempted murder. The High Court examined the medical evidence and the statutory provisions, noting that the injuries to a vital organ could be fatal and that the trial court was entitled to assess the evidence at a later stage. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower court's decision and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application under Section 251 of the BNSS.
- Whether the facts disclosed constitute a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's assessment of evidence at the revision stage.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act (BNS) — s. 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352
- Bihar Negotiable Substances (Special) Act (BNSS) — s. 251
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) — s. 307
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- criminal revision
- injury to head
- medical evidence
- Sessions Court
- judicial review
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1470 of 2026
Shambhu Paswan And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lalita Mishra, Rajnish Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the
State.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
7.1.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur whereby the
application moved by the revisionists under Section 251 of BNSS in
Session Case No. 2811 of 2025 ( State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Paswan and
others), arising out of case crime No. 487 of 2025, under Section 115(2),
352, 351(3), 109(1) of BNS, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur
has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned
order dated 7.1.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and without application of
judicial mind. There is neither any injury nor evidence which is led to the
offence under Section 307 IPC, hence the criminal revision is entitled to
be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that
according to the prosecution, the opposite party no.2- Smt. Pratibha Devi
has lodged the FIR on 16.7.2025 at about 8 O'clock. It has been alleged
that due to old enmity, the accused Shambhu, Pannelal, Chandan and
Surendra resident of her own village assaulted to her husband Mukesh
Paswan with iron-rod, lathi and danda with intention to kill him due to
which he received grievous injuries on his head and thereby he was
became unconscious. It is further stated that Dhananjay and Pankaj
CRLR No. 1470 of 2026
2
reached there to intervene in the matter, then the accused persons also
beaten them using abusive language by which both have also received
injuries.
5. As per prosecution, the injuries of injured persons, namely, Mukesh,
Pankaj Pawan and Dhananjay were examined at AIIMS, Gorakhpur on
16.7.2025, according to which, Mukesh has received two injuries, Pankaj
has received one injury and Dhananjay has received two injuries. The
injured Mukesh has got head injury and he was advised NCCT of Head
and thereafter, CT Scan of head was took place on 16.7.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the
prosecution has submitted the injury and CT Scan reports and doctor who
has examined the injured, he has not gave his opinion that these injuries
were fatal to the life of injured person. He, therefore submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision is
entitled to be allowed.
7. Learned AGA has opposed the criminal revision and submitted that all
the injured persons have received injuries and even injured Mukesh has
got injuries on his head which is vital part of the body. The CT Scan of
injured Mukesh also took place where head injury has also been
specifically mentioned in the said report.
8. There are three injured in the said case and injured Mukesh has got
head injury.The head injury is verified by CT Scan report also. The head
is important organ of the human body and the injury caused on the head
may be fatal at any stage.
9. Section 307 IPC reads as under:-
307. Attempt to murder.—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 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1 [imprisonment for life], or
to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
CRLR No. 1470 of 2026
3
10. There is prima facie case of Section 307 IPC is made out. The final
appreciation of evidence is not justifiable at this stage. The revisionists
are having all opportunities to lead his evidence or controvert the
evidence led by the prosecution at appropriate stage in the trial before the
learned trial court.
11. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the
impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
March 12, 2026
sfa/
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…