Allahabad High Court
RAVI PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The court held that the medical evidence on record, including the NCCT report, is sufficient and that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Summary
The revisionist challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in a POCSO‑related case, alleging that the medical evidence of the victim Gyanendra was incomplete because X‑ray and CT‑scan reports were not on record, and that the investigating officer’s credibility was compromised. The prosecution countered with an NCCT head report signed by Dr. Udai Bhan Singh showing a depressed frontal bone fracture, and an injury report documenting seven injuries. The court examined whether the lack of the alleged X‑ray/CT documents rendered the injury evidence inadmissible and the charge under Section 308 IPC untenable. It held that the NCCT report and the injury report constitute competent medical evidence, and that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was not premature or illegal. Consequently, the court found no irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the criminal revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of X‑ray or CT‑scan reports makes the victim's injury evidence inadmissible and defeats the charge under Section 308 IPC.
- Whether the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal or irregular on the ground of evidentiary deficiency.
- Whether a criminal revision is the appropriate forum to challenge the evidentiary findings at the stage of charge framing.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 308, 323, 427, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
Subjects
- criminal revision
- evidence admissibility
- medical report
- CT scan
- X‑ray
- Section 308 IPC
- procedural irregularity
- POCSO Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1480 of 2026
Ravi Prakash
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kailash Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Dubey
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the
impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
POCSO Act/Rape-II, Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 412 of 2023 (State vs. Chintamani
and Another), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., arising out
of Case Crime No. 121 of 2020, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in this case the main
injured is Gyanendra who has suffered seven injuries. The injury no. 1 is
shown as "lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm morsel deep on forehead 3
cm above tress root of nose KUO advice X-ray". Learned counsel for the
revisionist has further submitted that neither X-ray report or CT scan report
about the fracture of the injured has been filed on the record despite it the
charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further
submitted that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) who has conducted the
investigation in the said case his record is not clear and he has been already
dismissed and even in this investigation he was directed to do the
investigation properly.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied that the I.O. has recorded the
statement of Dr. Ran Bahadur Yadav and Dr. Udaybhan Singh, Medical
Officer Trauma Centre Varanasi, whereas, he has relied on the report
obtained by R.T.I. from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi that since
01.01.2020 till this date any doctor in the name of Dr. Udai Bhan Singh has
CRLR No. 1480 of 2026
2
not been appointed. He has further relied on the letter dated 17.07.2021 that
Dr. A.K. Patel has not been appointed at Amar Shahid Umanath Singh
District Hospital Jaunpur since 2020 till this time. He has further relied on
C.D. No. 10 that despite all efforts of the I.O. neither X-ray nor C.T. Scan
report of injured Gyanendra has been received.
5. It is contended that in the absence of the material documents relating to
the X-ray as well as CT scan, the alleged injury to Gyanendra is not
admissible in evidence and no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out.
Hence, the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is liable to be set aside and the
criminal revision deserves to be allowed
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon the
injury report of Gyanendra and the NCCT Head Report dated 22.05.2020,
which is signed by Dr. Udai Bhan Singh and relates to injured Gyanendra,
CT No. 248629, of Trauma Centre, Super Speciality Hospital, Institute of
Medical Sciences, B.H.U., Varanasi. Hence, prima facie it appears that the
NCCT head examination of injured Gyanendra was conducted at the
aforesaid Trauma Centre and the radiological report has been signed by Dr.
Udai Bhan Singh. The same cannot be ruled out at this stage. As per the said
NCCT head report, the impression shows a depressed fracture on the left
side of the frontal bone.
7. The injury report dated 22.05.2020 of Gyanendra, prepared at
Government Male Hospital, Shahganj, Jaunpur, records seven injuries,
which are as follows:
1. L/w of size 3 cm x 1 cm morsel deep on forehead 3 cm above tress root of
nose KUO advice X-ray.
2. Radish contusion swelling of size 5 cm x 4 cm as forehead just above
from root of nose.
3. L/w of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm over Lt index injury. Adv. X-ray.
4. Motile abrasion on Nose.
5. Abrasion of nose 4 cm x 0.5 cm on Lt forehead 2.5 cm below form Lt
shoes joints.
6. Cap is Rt. Leg.
7. Cap is Rt. knee joints.
8. There is an injury caused on the forehead of the injured Gyanendra, and as
per the NCCT head report, a depressed fracture on the left side of the frontal
CRLR No. 1480 of 2026
3
bone has been specifically mentioned. The head is a vital organ of the human
body, and any injury caused on the head which leads to a fracture could be
fatal at any stage.
9. The final appreciation of evidence is not justifiable at the stage of
discharge of the accused or framing of charge. The prosecution has to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt during trial, and the revisionist will have
ample opportunity to defend himself during the course of trial.
10. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
11. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed
accordingly.
March 12, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…