Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Sonkar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12424

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 209 of 2025

Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Sonkar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No.4, Sultanpur.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

¶9

Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶10

According to the prosecution case it is alleged that in the noon, marpeet took place in the Goansabha of the complainant between Dinesh Sonkar and Rampal. The complainant went to police station to know the well being of both the parties being the Gram Pradhan. As soon as he came out from the police station from the side of Dinesh Sonkar, Vikas Sonkar, Shivram, Chandan, Azad Sonkar, Ajay Sonkar, Ravi Sonkar, Virendra and others chased him and assaulted him by iron rod, axe and lathi and broke his hand, leg, head and leaving him almost dead. Mahesh Chandra gave information to the police. It is further alleged that mobile of the complainant had also been stolen.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured Ramesh Chandra was examined on 12.9.2020 at 7.10. p.m. He submits that the injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. The doctor has opined the injuries as simple. He has referred the alleged injured for x ray but he did not go for x ray. There is no x ray report or any other supplementary report. Statements of injured Ramesh Chandra as well as Mahesh Chandra were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Dr. Hemant Verma was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who also has stated the injuries as simple in nature. It is submitted that charge-sheet was filed. Learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and committed the case to the court of session for trial in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without going through the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention and has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance only prima facie case is to be seen.

¶13

Perused the record as also the injury report.

¶14

Perusal of the impugned order, injury report, statement of the injured as well as the statement of the Doctor Hemant Verma, which are on record, do not depict that there was any intention of the applicant to cause death of the injured.

¶15

Perusal of the record further shows that although the injured was referred for x-ray still there is nothing on record to show that any x ray was conducted neither there is any mention in the order impugned. The

¶16

injured has received following six injuries:-

¶17

"1. Contusion 7x4cm on right hand, 7cm above from wrist joint. Refer for x-ray.

¶18

2. Lacerated wound 3.5x0.5 cm at mid of palm, left hand.

¶19

3. Contusion 4x4 cm at mid of head.

¶20

4. Abrasion 3x2 cm on right leg, 18 cm below from knee joint.

¶21

5. Abrasion3x2.5 cm left side face 2 cm from ear pinna.

¶22

6. Abrasion 30 cm on back horizontal."

¶23

There is nothing on record to show that injuries were grievous in nature.

¶24

Considering the allegations in the present case on the face value of the FIR, the statement of the injured and the other prosecution witnesses

¶25

and medico legal report it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C are attracted. While rejecting the application for discharge, the nature of injuries and the offence which is allegedly made out have not been discussed in the impugned order. The impugned order appears to have been passed on the pretext that after recording the statement of prosecution witness the medical report etc. charge-sheet has been filed under Section 307/34 IPC and injured has sustained six injuries and injury no.3 is on vital part, therefore, there is no ground for discharge at this stage. Although probing enquiry is not required, however, the court has to prima facie consider as to whether the offences with which the accused persons have been charged, are actually made out on the basis of the material on record. In this case, it appears that learned court below only took into consideration the facts that the injured has been assaulted and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶26

Perusal of the injury report, the statement of the injured and the facts that

¶27

simple injuries have been sustained and also there is no x ray report or supplementary medical report, prima facie do not show that offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out. Prima facie , it does not appear that there was any intention of the applicant to cause fatal injury to the injured.

¶28

Considering the above, the revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 17.12.2024 (supra) is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to learned court below concerned to reconsider the application for discharge and decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶29

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Sonkar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Sonkar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Preeti Singh vs Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhakar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Babu Ram vs District Magistrate,Gonda and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others