Allahabad High Court
DEVENDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The revision is dismissed as being devoid of merit and the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application stands.
Summary
The High Court examined a criminal revision filed by Devendra Yadav challenging the Additional Session Judge’s order rejecting his discharge application in a case under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC. Yadav argued that the FIR was false, the injuries were caused by a blunt object and did not demonstrate intent to kill, and that the trial court failed to consider these facts. The State opposed the revision. The Court found that the FIR, witness statements and the medical report all indicated that the accused assaulted the victim with an axe, causing a lacerated wound and joint displacement, thereby establishing a prima facie case under Section 307. It held that the trial court had duly considered the material and there was no illegality in its order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application on the ground that no prima facie case under Section 307 IPC existed
- Whether the medical evidence and witness statements were sufficient to sustain the charges under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- attempt to murder
- medical evidence
- prima facie case
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 227 CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4807 of 2025
Devendra Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ram Pravesh Yadav, Shashank Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeraj Singh
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the
judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session
Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia by which the discharge application dated
18.06.2025 filed by the revisionist in Session Trial No. 532 of 2025 (State
Versus Devendra Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2024, under
Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagra, District Ballia has been
rejected.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a
first information report was lodged with false allegation under Sections 307,
504, 506 I.P.C by the informant against the revisionist. He further submitted
that during the medical examination, the doctor has opined that the injuries
were caused with hard and blunt object, even though, the investigating
officer has submitted charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C., whereas no
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out, even on the basis of nature of
injuries. He further submitted that there was no intention to cause death of
the injured by causing such type of injuries on his person, since injuries
were on the back of victim. Learned trial court has not considered all these
facts while passing the order on the discharge application, therefore, order
dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned trial court under Section 227
Cr.P.C. is illegal and inappropriate and is liable to be set aside and revision
CRLR No. 4807 of 2025
2
is to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer as aforesaid
5. On perusal of record, it transpires that in the first information report, the
informant/injured himself mentioned that with intention to kill him, the
accused made assault with an axe and inflicted the injuries on his back and
incident was seen by Gandhi Yadav and Brij Kumar @ Bikku, who also
came for rescue. The statements of the injured and other witnesses were
recorded by the investigating officer in which they categorically stated that
the injuries were caused with an axe by the revisionist to the injured. During
the medical examination, the injury was found on left side of scapuler
region and was in the nature of lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. It was
referred for X-ray in which joint was found to be shifted as stated by the Dr.
Sharad, who examined the inured at Primary Health Center and opined on
X-ray report. At this stage the learned trial court has to make scrutiny of
material on record with a view to form opinion regarding prima facie case,
but such scrutiny is not expected as during the course of the trial. Learned
trial court has taken into consideration the contents of the first information
report, statements of witnesses, nature of injuries and the statement of the
doctor while passing the order. There appears no any illegality or
impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, but this revision
being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
April 23, 2026
T.S.
Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…