Allahabad High Court

NEKPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 15 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The court held that the material on record prima facie supports the charge under Section 307 IPC and that the revision lacks merit, leading to its dismissal.

Summary

The revisionists challenged the Sessions Judge's order framing charges under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in a case arising from an incident on 21 March 2024. They claimed no vital injury occurred, asserted an alibi supported by CCTV footage, and argued that the intent to cause death required for Section 307 was absent. The State contended that the injuries to the victim, Chhatrapal, were multiple, grievous, and medically likely to be life‑threatening, and that the factual findings could not be reviewed in a criminal revision. The court examined the injury report, medical opinion, and witness statements, concluding that there was prima facie material to sustain the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307. It held that the revision court cannot interfere with the charge‑framing decision absent illegality or irregularity. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the charge under Section 307 IPC can be framed when the alleged injury is not fatal and the accused claim an alibi.
Whether the revision court may set aside the Sessions Judge's charge‑framing order on factual grounds.
Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the Sessions Judge's order warranting interference.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 325, 34, 504, 506

Subjects

IPC
Section 307
charge framing
criminal revision
alibi
grievous hurt
common intention
evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 383 of 2026

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

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the
State.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated
19.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi
in S.T. No. 41 of 2025 (State Vs. Manoj and others), arising out of case
crime No. 88 of 2024, whereby charge has been framed against the
revisionists under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 307/34, 504, 506 IPC,
Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the incident is of
21.3.2024 at 17.00 hours. The FIR was lodged on 22.3.2024 at 00.12
hours. He has vehemently submitted that there is no injury on the vital
part of the body. The injury, if any, is not sufficient to frame charge under
Section 307 IPC. There is CCTV camera which verifies that Nekpal was
not present at the place of incident. The intention to cause death is
missing, hence the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is liable to be set
aside and the criminal revision is entitled to be allowed.

5. Learned AGA has submitted that the charges have already been
framed. The question of fact could not be decided in criminal revision.
There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal
revision is thus liable to be dismissed.
CRLR No. 383 of 2026
2

6. The plea of alibi taken by the revisionists, that has to be seen at the
stage of trial. The injury report of injured Chhatra Pal is on record. There
are 12 injuries on the injured and injury no. 1 and 2 is caused by incised
weapon and other injuries on ankle joint hip and part of the body. The
witness Jagat Pal has recorded his statement during investigation that
Chhtrapal has been beaten by his co-villagers, Manoj, Durvesh, Nekpal,
Pappu by lathi-danda and axe. He has raised his hands and tried to cover
his head to save himself.

7. The supplementary injury report of injured Chhatrapal is having x-ray
of ankle joint, fracture both bone, right elbow joint, fracture both bone,
left elbow joint fracture both bone. The injury was grievous in nature.

8. The statement of Dr. Manmohan Sharma was recorded. He has verified
that injured Chhatrapal is having 12 injuries. The injury nos. 1 and 2 is
caused by hard and sharp pointed object and injury nos. 3,4,5,6 and 9
caused by hard and rough object and injury nos. 7,10 and 12 caused by
blunt object. In the report, doctor found fracture. On the question whether
as per medical report of injured Chhatrapal, it may lead to loss of his life.
The reply by doctor "yes".

9. There is multiple injuries and multiple fracture to the injured and it is
also danger to his life. There are 12 injuries and ankle fracture on the
injured Chhatrapal. The final interpretation could be given after recording
of evidence of the prosecution and defence. Prima facie, there is sufficient
material to frame charges under Section 307 IPC as well as in other
sections.

10. In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

11. The criminal revision is dismissed.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 16, 2026
sfa/

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…