Allahabad High Court
RAM BRIKSHA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA
Holding
The trial court erred in ignoring the injury report and medical evidence, and the order dismissing the application under Section 227 to frame charge under Section 308 IPC is set aside.
Summary
Ram Briksha Yadav filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, which dismissed an application under CrPC Section 227 to frame a charge under IPC Section 308 against four accused, on the ground that there was no material evidence. The revisionist contended that the injury report of the victim, Brij Bhushan, showing a dangerous left parietal brain injury and a doctor's statement, was ignored by the trial court. The High Court examined the record, found the medical evidence material, and held that the trial court erred in overlooking it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to pass a fresh order considering the injury report. The parties were ordered to appear before the trial court on 21 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in concluding that there was no material evidence to frame a charge under IPC Section 308 despite the victim's injury report and medical opinion.
- Whether the injury report and doctor's statement constitute sufficient material evidence under CrPC Section 227 to direct the framing of charge.
- Whether the criminal revision under CrPC Section 227 is maintainable in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 227 CrPC
- Section 308 IPC
- injury report
- medical evidence
- charge framing
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6209 of 2024
Ram Briksha Yadav
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Azaz Ahmad, Shashi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Mohan, Suneel Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Azaz
Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. R.K. Gupta, leaned A.G.A.
for O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.
2,3,4 and 5 and perused the record.
2. The revisionist Ram Briksha Yadav has approached this court
challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh (herein above referred
as "trial court"), whereby the trial court has decided the application under
Section 227 moved by O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 and opined that there is no material
evidence to frame the charge under Section 308 IPC against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the informant has filed the
present criminal revision on the ground that there is clear cut injury
disclosed in the injury report of injured Brij Bhushan, but the same has been
ignored by the trial court. The injury report of Brij Bhushan is available at
pages 45, 47, 49 of the paper book, wherein the C.T. Scan report shows
injuries on the left parietal region of brain. Such injuries appears to be
dangerous to life. During statutory investigation the Investigating Officer has
recorded the statement of doctor concerned who clearly opined that such
injuries is dangerous to life. But the trial court did not consider the same
which is against the medical standard. Thus the present revision is liable to
be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this court.
CRLR No. 6209 of 2024
2
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 to
5 vehemently opposed the criminal revision but could not dislodge the
aforesaid submission.
5. In view of above, in my opinion the submission made by learned Senior
Counsel for revisionist are clearly borne out from the record.
6. Accordingly, the criminal revision has force and deserves to be allowed.
Since the impugned order has been passed ignoring the injury report
available on record, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The
trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made
herein above.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.05.2026.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
April 23, 2026
RPD
Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…