Allahabad High Court
RAJESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court correctly framed the charge on a prima facie basis and that no illegality existed in its order.
Summary
The revisionist challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting a discharge application and refusing to omit charge under Section 308 IPC, alleging that the medical report supporting the charge was forged. The High Court examined the medical evidence, noting that the CT scan was performed at a private diagnostic centre and the supplementary report did not indicate any suspicion of falsity. It held that at the charge‑framing stage the court need only ascertain a prima facie case and is not required to verify the authenticity of the medical report fully. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court's decision to frame the charge. The revision was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the accused and in framing charge under Section 308 IPC despite alleged falsity of the medical report.
- Whether at the charge‑framing stage the court must verify the authenticity of medical evidence or merely establish a prima facie case.
- Whether the revision under Section 227 CrPC is maintainable in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- revision
- charge framing
- Section 308 IPC
- medical evidence
- prima facie
- CrPC Section 227
- CrPC Section 482
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5003 of 2025
Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Brijesh Chandra Tripathi, Sunil Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Harsh Mishra
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harish Mishra, learned counsel
for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order
dated 18.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,
Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 318 of 2023 (State Vs. Rajeshwar) arising out
of Crime No. 08 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, Police
Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur on an application under Section 227
Cr.P.C. for discharge by which the learned trial court has rejected the
application on 18.07.2025.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, an
F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. During the course of
investigation, Section 308 IPC was added by the Investigating Officer on the
basis of forged medical report showing fracture of frontal bone. The doctor
in the name of Udai Bhan is not posted in the BHU even though there is
report of NCCT head dated 20.01.2020 on the basis of which the medical
officer working in Community Health Center, Suiya Kala has prepared
supplementary report showing fracture of right side frontal bone, grievous in
nature and subdural hemorrhage in right frontal region with air foci. On the
basis of this supplementary report the learned trial court has declined the
prayer of the revisionist not to frame the charge under Section 308 IPC. He
filed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was decided and
against the order passed by this Court in an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., he
moved Special Leave to Appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was
CRLR No. 5003 of 2025
2
dismissed as withdrawn with direction to move discharge application at the
stage of framing of charge that's why he has moved the present application
with prayer but not allowed by the learned trial court. The order passed by
learned trial court is illegal and inappropriate, therefore, request to set aside
the order dated 18.07.2025 and allow the revision.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as A.G.A. opposed the prayer
as aforesaid.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of
record, it transpires that the injures were caused to the injured Vedant Tiwari
and it was medically examined and when CT scan was done, frontal bone
was found to be fractured. C.T. scan was done in Trauma Centre &
Superficiality Hospital that is Private Diagnostic Centre but at this stage it
cannot be said that the NCCT report has been prepared falsely. The doctor
working in C.H.C. Suiya Kala has prepared supplementary report on the
basis of NCCT report and found the injury fatal to the life of the injured,
since it was fracture of right side of frontal bone with hemorrhage in right
frontal region. The doctor of C.H.C. forming opinion about injury has not
indicated in his report that NCCT report was suspicious or prepared falsely.
On the basis of supplementary report and the gravity of the injury, the
Investigating Officer has added section 308 IPC with other Sections. The
learned trial court has also considered all these material while passing the
order in question. At the stage of framing of charge, the material collected
during the course of investigation is subjected the scrutiny only with a view
to find out prima facie case but the scrutiny of the material is not expected to
be done as during the trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the NCCT
report and supplementary report prepared by the doctor C.H.C. Suiya Kala is
false. Even on strong suspicion, charge can be framed. In this way, there
appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 18.07.2025 passed
by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
May 6, 2026
Anurag Singh
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…