HARISHCHANDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 192 of 2025

Harishchandra And 3 Others
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)       : Moti Lal Chauhan, Priya Ranjan Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A., Sher Bahadur Yadav

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State,
and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against
the impugned order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the learned Special
Judge (E.C. Act), Upper Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, on the discharge
application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No. 213 of 2024
(State of U.P. versus Harishchandra and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 372 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station
Gambirpur, District Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 filed a counter-affidavit today.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that he would not file a
rejoinder affidavit and proceeded with his arguments. Hence, the
arguments of all parties were heard.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the alleged incident,
if any, took place on 01.11.2022, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on
03.11.2022. It was further submitted that the injuries sustained by the
injured occurred in a road accident. He relied on Annexure No. 4, which
shows that the patient was involved in a Road Traffic Accident (RTA)
and was referred to a higher centre.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that, as per the
Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Institute of Medical Sciences,
                                                        CRLR No. 192 of 2025
                               2


Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, in the X-ray report of the chest dated
03.11.2022 of the injured Sahavag Rawat, no obvious radiological
abnormality was found.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that if the road
accident took place on 03.11.2022 then what was the time of reaching
Lalganj Azamgarh and thereafter when he was referred to district hospital
Azamgarh on the very same day on 03.11.2022 and how he got
admission on the same date on 03.11.2022 at Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi at 9.10 A.M. It is submitted that the alleged incident if any took
place on 03.11.2022 at 8.30 A.M.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that there are some discrepancies in
the dates and times (A.M. to P.M.). Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out and that
the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the injured has
got the injury in his head. The N.C.C.T. Head report of the injured,
Sahavag Rawat, dated 03.11.2022, at Trauma Centre & Superspeciality
Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, filed as Annexure No. 6 at page 58A, records the following
impression: (i) Fracture left temporal and parietal bones; (ii) Focal
hemorrhagic contusion left parietal lobe with left parietal lobe with left
parietal epidural hemorrhage.

9. The contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionists regarding
the alleged date and time of the accident, and the subsequent treatment at
Lalganj, Azamgarh, District Hospital, Azamgarh, and Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, are matters of fact to be decided during the trial.

10. As far as the injuries are concerned, the N.C.C.T. Head report dated
03.11.2022 specifically mentions a fracture left temporal and parietal
bones and a focal hemorrhagic contusion left parietal lobe with left
parietal lobe with left parietal epidural hemorrhage. The skull/head is
always a vital part of the body, and any injury to the head may result in
serious consequences.
                                                                                              CRLR No. 192 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    11. In the N.C.C.T. Head report of the injured, a fracture was found,
                                    which constitutes a heinous and serious injury.

                                    12. In view of the above, the revisionists are not entitled to be discharged.

                                    13. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order.

                                    14. The criminal revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, and it is
                                    dismissed accordingly.



                                                                                              (Abdul Shahid,J.)
                                    March 10, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad