Allahabad High Court

HIMANSHU SINGH YADAV ALIAS PUNEET KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The trial court correctly framed charges as a prima facie case for IPC section 304 existed, and the revision applications are dismissed.

Summary

The revisionists Himanshu Singh Yadav and Sher Singh were charged under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 and 304 for assaulting a person who later died from septicemia. They sought to quash the trial court’s order refusing their discharge application, arguing that the death was not a direct result of the injuries and that only suspicion, not grave suspicion, existed. The State contended that the injuries were grievous, caused fractures, and that the post‑mortem linked the death to shock and septicemia arising from those injuries. The High Court examined the medical evidence, held that the death was causally connected to the ante‑mortem injuries, and found that a prima facie case for section 304 existed. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that discharge is permissible only when only suspicion exists, the Court concluded the trial court correctly framed charges and dismissed the revisions.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the accused on the ground that the death was not caused by the injuries.
Whether a prima facie case for offence under IPC section 304 exists when death results from septicemia secondary to injuries.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304, 323, 504, 506

Subjects

assault
grievous hurt
death
septicemia
charge framing
discharge application
prima facie case
suspicion vs grave suspicion
criminal revision

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7844 of 2025

Himanshu Singh Yadav Alias Puneet Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shweta Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chetan Chatterjee, G.A.

with

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6734 of 2025

Sher Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shweta Pandey, Imran Mabood Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned counsel for the
opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material on record.

These criminal revisions have been filed with prayer to quash the order dated
30.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1,
Fatehpur in S.T. No.986 of 2025 (State vs. Sher Singh and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.181 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C.,
Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur by which discharge application
has been rejected and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an
F.I.R. was lodged u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. for causing injuries to the
CRLR No. 7844 of 2025
2

deceased by the revisionists. The injuries were found on non-vital parts of
the body of the injured but were on hands and legs. During the course of
treatment, there was surgical operation conducted by the doctor and then
there was septicemia as a result the deceased died after gap of one month
form the date of incident. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the
I.O. u/s 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C. An application for discharge was moved
before the learned court with prayer to discharge the revisionists since
offence u/s 304 I.P.C. is not made out. Learned trial court did not consider
the correct position of law and also the facts of the case and the fact that
death was caused as a result of septicemia but not as a result of injuries
caused on his person by the revisionists. In this way, the order dated
30.09.2025 passed by learned trial court is erroneous and is liable to be set
aside.

He has relied his argument on the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.5146 of 2025 Tuhin Kumar Biswas @
Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal in para no.14 & 15 in which it has
been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if two views are possible
and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at
this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will result in conviction or
acquittal.

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed
the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case though the injuries
were not on vital parts of the body but there were five fractures and the
hands and legs of the deceased were fractured as a result of injuries caused
by the revisionists to him regarding which he was admitted into the hospital
and treatment was provided but he could not recover and died even after
proper treatment. The doctor providing treatment also opined the cause of
death to be the result of ante-mortem injuries and septicemia. Even in the
post-mortem the cause of death was found to be shock and septicemia due to
ante-mortem injuries. In this way, the death of the deceased cannot be said to
be the result of of septicemia only but it is related to the ante mortem injuries
on his person. At this stage, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased
was the result of septicemia only and there was no relation with ante-mortem
injuries. This fact cannot be decided at this stage but it is possible during the
course of trial after the examination of medical expert. In this way, the
learned trial court has considered all the material present on record and then
CRLR No. 7844 of 2025
3

passed the order in question and there is no any illegality or impropriety in
the order but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of
record, it transpires that in this case the deceased was assaulted with lathi
and danda by the revisionists and injuries were caused on his person those
were grievous in nature though on legs and hands. The condition of the
injured was too critical as a result he was admitted in the hospital and was
provided treatment for a month and he was also subjected to surgical
operation, thereafter, there developed septicemia resulting into his death.
The cause of death in post-mortem was found to be shock and septicemia
due to ante-mortem injuries. The statement of the doctor providing treatment
to the injured was also recorded by the I.O. in which he opined clearly that
the deceased died on account of septicemia as a result of injuries on his
person. There is nothing on record to suggest that death of the deceased was
result of septicemia only and there was no relation between the injuries on
his person and septicemia resulted into his death. At the stage of framing of
charge, the trial court is expected to find out prima facie case and even on
grave suspicion charge can be framed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
observed in the aforesaid case that if two views are possible and one of them
suggests about the suspicion only then the court can discharge the accused.
At this stage, the court is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal. The order passed by learned trial court shows that the learned
court has considered the material on record in view of law as settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases regarding discharge and framing of
charge and then passed the order in question. There is no any illegality or
impropriety in the order dated 30.09.2025 but this revision being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, these criminal revisions are dismissed at the admission stage
itself.

May 12, 2026
Ashok Gupta
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…