Allahabad High Court

BANTI ALIAS MRITUNJAY AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 9 March 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application was lawful and dismissed the criminal revision.

Summary

The revisionists, Banti alias Mritunjay and three others, were charge‑sheeted under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 110 of the B.N.S. for injuries inflicted on several victims, including head wounds. They filed a discharge application which the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) rejected, prompting a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court. The revisionists argued that the medical reports showed only simple injuries, no fractures, and that Section 110 requires a specific grievous injury, so the discharge should have been granted. The State contended that any head injury is a vital‑part injury that could be fatal and that the FIR was timely lodged, making the revision untenable. After examining the injury reports, X‑ray findings and the doctor’s opinion that head injuries may prove fatal, the High Court held that the trial court had not acted illegally or irregularly and dismissed the revision. Consequently, the discharge application remains rejected and the criminal proceedings continue.

Issues considered

Whether the injuries sustained by the victims constitute a grievous injury sufficient to attract offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application without proper consideration of the medical evidence
Whether the criminal revision is maintainable given the prompt lodging of the FIR

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 351(2), 352
Prevention of Corruption Act

Subjects

criminal revision
discharge application
medical evidence
head injury
Section 110
grievous injury
Prevention of Corruption Act
trial court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1605 of 2026

Banti Alias Mritunjay And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Pandey, Aqueel Ahmad, G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for
Opposite Party No. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has
been perused.

2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act),
Special Court No. 1, Azamgarh in Case No. 1079 of 2025 (State vs. Banti @
Mritunjay) under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 110 of the B.N.S., Police
Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 0463
of 2024, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionists has been
rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists
have been charge-sheeted under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 110 of the
B.N.S. It is further submitted that, as per the F.I.R., the injured had become
unconscious due to the injury. The injury report of the injured, Sumit Kumar
Tiwari, was prepared at PHC Rani Ki Sarai on the basis of the Majroobi
Chitthi, and it was mentioned in the General Diary of the police station that
there was no report regarding the consciousness of Sumit Kumar Tiwari in
his injury report. It is further submitted that, as per the report of the X-ray
technician/radiologist of District Hospital, Azamgarh, no fracture of the
skull bone was found in the X-ray reports of Sumit Kumar Tiwari and
Harikesh Tiwari.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 110 of the B.N.S.
provides that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if by that act he caused death, he would be
guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

5. It is next submitted that, from a perusal of the injury reports and the
statement of the doctor, it is clear that the injuries sustained by the injured
persons are simple in nature and would not cause death. However, the
learned trial court, without properly considering the medical evidence,
CRLR No. 1605 of 2026
2

rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. Hence, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned
A.G.A. opposed the revision and contended that there is no requirement of a
specific grievous injury for attracting the offence under Section 110 of the
B.N.S. It is further contended that the injuries were caused on the head,
which is a vital part of the human body, and such an injury may prove fatal
at any stage. He next contended that the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged;
therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that as per the injury report of
Harikesh Tiwari, he sustained injury on the skull and X-ray was advised.
Injured Harikesh Tiwari has sutained three injuries, which are as follows:

(1)A lacerated wound on left to midline on forhead sized about 4 cm x 0.5
cm.

(2) Complaint of pain on left side of chest.

(3) Swelling in right side and complaint of pain. For injury (1) ref. to District
Hospital for X-ray skull with expert opinion.

8. Injured Sumit Kumar Tiwari has also sustained four injuries, which are as
follows:

(1) A lacerated wound of sized about 9 cm in length x 1.5 cm with on tap of
skull.

(2) Swelling present over back of head.

(3) Contusion on left shoulder sized about 13 cm x 2.5 cm.

(4) Contusion on right shoulder sized about 11 cm x 2.5 cm.

9. Both the injured persons were advised to undergo X-ray examination of
the skull.

10. As per the X-ray report of Sumit Kumar Tiwari, no obvious bone injury
was found. However, the injured HarishTiwari sustained multiple contusions
over in area measuring about 9 cm × 7cm over back.

11. Madhubala has sustained two injuries which are as follows:

(1) Swelling of diameter of about 2 cm on left side of forehead above left
eye.

(2) Complaint of pain in back.

12. Meena Tiwari has sustained three injuries which are as follows:

(1) Abrasion of side about 1 cm x 0.1 cm on left wrist.
CRLR No. 1605 of 2026
3
(2) Complaint of pain on left shoulder.

(3) Complaint of pain in neck.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionists further argued that there are only
general allegations against the revisionists and there is no specific averment
as to who were the assailants.

14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the
statement of the doctor has been filed as Annexure-6 to the criminal
revision. A specific question was put to Dr. Rohit Mishra regarding the
injuries sustained by the injured persons, namely Sumit Kumar Tiwari and
Harikesh Tiwari. Both the injured persons had sustained injuries on their
heads and were advised to undergo an X-ray examination and were referred
to District Hospital, Azamgarh. The doctor stated that the head is a vital part
of the human body and that injuries caused to it may prove fatal to life.
Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the injuries sustained on the heads of
the injured persons could be fatal.

15. From the material available on record, it further transpires that several
injuries were sustained in the said incident. Two injured persons sustained
lacerated wounds on their heads. Since the head is a vital part of the human
body, any injury caused to it may prove fatal at any stage. A specific role has
also been assigned to the revisionist. However, the veracity of the allegations
is a matter of evidence which can only be adjudicated during the course of
trial.

16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in
the impugned order passed by the trial court. The present criminal revision is
liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
March 10, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…