Allahabad High Court
YAHIYA AND ANOTEHRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court's order rejecting the discharge application was lawful and dismissed the revision.
Summary
The petitioners Yahiya and another filed a criminal revision under Sections 438/442 of the B.N.S.S. challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting their discharge application in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The FIR dated 26‑02‑2024 named unknown persons; the petitioners were not originally named but were later charged. They contended that the medical report showed only blunt‑force injuries and no incised wound, thereby negating the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The High Court held that the nature of the injuries and the presence of the accused at the scene supported the prosecution’s case and that a detailed assessment of intention is not permissible at the discharge stage. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- The trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application for the accused under Sections 438/442 of the B.N.S.S.
- Whether the medical evidence of only blunt injuries defeats the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet correctly implicate the petitioners in the offences alleged.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 438, 442
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- attempt to murder
- IPC
- medical evidence
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 293 of 2026
Yahiya And Anotehr
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jay Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Prakash Yadav
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present Criminal Revision, filed under Sections 438/442 of the
B.N.S.S., challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut, in
Sessions Trial No. 785 of 2025 (State vs. Yahaya and others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 0078 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307,
504, and 506 I.P.C., and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut, whereby the discharge
application filed by the revisionists was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order
dated 09.12.2025 is patently illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes
of law. It is further contended that the said order is unreasoned and non-
speaking.
4. It has been submitted that the FIR was lodged on the date of the incident,
i.e., 26.02.2024, against 10–15 unknown persons under Sections 147, 148,
149, 332, 353, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. The revisionists were not named in the
FIR. According to the allegations in the FIR, no offence under Section 307
I.P.C. is made out. It is further contended that, as per the injury report, the
injured Neeraj Kumar sustained only simple injuries.
5. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists.
It is contended that the same has been filed on incorrect facts. It is further
submitted that no injury was caused by a knife. Reliance has been placed on
the statement of the doctor who medically examined the injured persons on
26.02.2024. The doctor stated that he was posted on emergency duty at the
P.H.C., District Hospital, Meerut. On that date, Head Constable Sanjay
Kumar and Head Constable Neeraj Kumar were medically examined by him.
Head Constable Sanjay Kumar sustained three injuries, while Head
Constable Neeraj Kumar sustained simple injuries. All the injuries were
caused by hard and blunt objects.
CRLR No. 293 of 2026
2
6. In the present case, the injured persons are police personnel who sustained
injuries in the alleged incident. As per the FIR, 10–15 persons present at the
spot assaulted them with legs and fists, hurled abuses, and one of them
attempted to attack with a knife. The injured persons have stated that they
fell to the ground and saved themselves from the knife attack. It is not
mentioned in the FIR that they suffered any incised wound. Therefore, the
contention of the revisionists that no incised injury was sustained does not,
at this stage, demolish the prosecution case.
7. The investigation has revealed that the revisionists were present at the
spot and the police personnel were assaulted with legs, fists, and hard blunt
objects, which is corroborated by the nature of the injuries and the medical
evidence on record.
8. So far as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, the intention
of the accused and the effect of the injuries are matters to be considered
during trial on the basis of evidence. At the stage of discharge, a meticulous
appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The
criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
February 13, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…