Allahabad High Court

RAJEEV PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 16 March 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The discharge order of the accused under Section 308 IPC is set aside and the trial is to proceed.

Summary

The revisionist Rajeev Pandey filed a criminal revision challenging the Sessions Judge’s order dated 2 April 2025 that discharged Harish Chandra Tiwari and Sangeeta Tiwari in a case of alleged assault causing serious neck injury to his uncle, Kade Prasad Tiwari, on 6 August 2022. The FIR, lodged on the same day, alleged that the accused beat the victim with a lathi‑danda, rendering him unconscious and causing grievous spinal injury, as corroborated by statements under Section 161 CrPC and multiple medical reports from CHC Maharajganj, Jaunpur District Hospital, SRN Hospital Prayagraj and BHU Varanasi. The revisionist argued that the discharge was illegal, arbitrary and non‑speaking, relying on the victim’s statements, the complainant’s statement, and detailed radiology and hospital referral documents. The High Court examined whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge under Section 308 IPC and found that the discharge was not justified. Consequently, the Court set aside the discharge order, allowed the revision, and directed the trial court to continue the trial expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 308 IPC on the basis of the material on record.
Whether the statements under Section 161 CrPC and the medical reports constitute sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of causing grievous hurt.
Whether the order of discharge was illegal, arbitrary or non‑speaking.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 352, 427, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal revision
discharge order
Section 308 IPC
assault
grievous injury
medical evidence
procedural fairness

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3310 of 2025

Rajeev Pandey
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the
State.

2. The notice was duly issued on the available address of opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, but none appeared for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. After
a reasonable time, the matter has been heard and is being decided on
merit.

3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred challenging the
impugned order dated 2.4.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jaunpur in Case No. 1380/2022 ( State Vs. Harish Chandra and another),
under Section 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj,
District Jaunpur, whereby the discharge application of the accused
persons was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the FIR has been
lodged on the same day of the incident i.e. 6.8.2022 under Section 323,
308, 506 IPC by the revisionist/Rajeev Pandey himself against named
accused persons viz. (1) Harish Chandra Tiwari and Sangeeta Tiwari, who
are the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is specific
allegation that on 6.8.2022 around 6.00 am morning, Harish Chandra and
Sangeeta had hurled abuses to his uncle (Phupha), Kade Prasad Tiwari
alias Pappu Tiwari and they beaten on his neck by Lathi-danda. He
CRLR No. 3310 of 2025
2

became unconscious and fell down on the floor. He took him to CHC,
Maharajganj where doctor found him in serious condition and referred to
Jaunpur District Hospital. The District Hospital, Jaunpur has further
referred on the same day due to serious nature to S.R.N. Hospital,
Allahabad (Prayagraj). His son resides at Surat. The complainant stated
that uncle (Phupha), Kade Prasad Tiwari alias Pappu Tiwari is residing
alone in his house.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned
order dated 2.4.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur is
absolutely illegal, arbitrary and non-speaking order, whereby he has
wrongly discharged the accused/opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for the
offence under Section 308 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist has
relied on the statement of revisionist himself, which was recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C and statement of wife of injured Kade Prasad Tiwari,
Smt. Manju Tiwari, who has reiterated the same incident which has been
narrated in the FIR and corroborated the same. Both had given the
specific evidence against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that both had hit
Kade Prasad Tiwari on his neck and waist. He has suffered seriously.

7. Smt. Manju Tiwari stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
that they had taken the injured to CHC, Maharajganj, even though injured
was in unconscious condition. The doctor found his condition as serious,
hence referred to Jaunpur. The doctor of Jaunpur further find her
condition serious, hence referred to SRN Hospital, Prayagraj. The
Hospital at SRN, Prayagraj had further referred the injured to BHU on the
same day of the incident i.e. 6.8.2022 after considering serious nature of
the injuries of the injured.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on Annexure-4 which is
paper of SRN Hospital, Prayagraj dated 6.8.2022 time 2.30 pm, where the
injured was referred from Amar Saheed Gananath Singh District Hospital,
Jaunpur and further referred to higher. He was referred to higher
management for crovical spins injury with compromised seniority
motoloss of right upper limb. He has further relied on NCCT Head of
injured Kade Prasad Tiwari alias Pappu Tiwari dated 7.8.2022 of Trauma
Centre and Superspeciality Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences,
CRLR No. 3310 of 2025
3

Varanasi. The report (0.6 min axial sections taken for brain from base of
skull to vertex region). Learned counsel for the revisionist has further
relied on radiology report of injured dated 13.2.2025.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently submitted that the
injured has suffered serious injury on his neck and he has further relied on
the supplementary affidavit dated 15.9.2025, where he has filed
photograph of the injured and also relied that further the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 had further committed an incident on 26.4.2024 against
Sangeeta Devi wife of Kade Prasad Tiwari. The FIR was registered at
case crime No. 0069 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 IPC,
Police Station Maharajganj District Jaunpur. He further relied on the
report of Trauma Centre and Superspeciality Hospital, Kashi Hindu
Vishwavidyalaya dated 6.8.2022 at 11.00 pm on the same day of incident
whhere the injured was referred from SRN Hospital to BHU.

10. The nature of the injury of the injured is apparent to be grievous in
nature which is consistent with the treatment of injured. Firstly, he was
referred from CHC, Maharajganj to District Hospital, Jaunpur. Thereafter
to SRN Hospital, Prayagraj and thereafter to BHU Varanasi on the same
day. The charge sheet is already filed under Section 308 IPC. The injuries
has been caused on the neck of the injured by the accused persons. The
neck is a vital part of the body. The injured has consistently suffered due
to the injuries in his spinal cord and his treatment still is in continuation.

11. In view of all the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned herein
above, the discharge of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the offence under
Section 308 IPC is not appeared to be reasonable or justiceable. Hence,
the discharge of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 308 IPC by the
impugned order dated 2.4.2025 is hereby set aside. The criminal revision
is hereby allowed accordingly. Learned trial court is directed to proceed
trial of the case in accordance with law expeditiously.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)
March 17, 2026
sfa/

Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…