Bindra Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bindra Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the revisionists, warranting exoneration or alteration of charge via their application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., and whether the trial court's rejection of that discharge application was lawful.

Court's answer

On the basis of the available evidences and the nature of the injuries, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 rejecting the revisionists' discharge application under Section 216 Cr.P.C.; consequently the criminal revision is dismissed.

Key takeaways

The court has enough and ample power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add or alter the charge at any stage of the trial.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HC, Court No. 91 (Abdul Shahid, J.), decided 12.12.2025 - Criminal Revision No. 8211 of 2025: dismissed. Bindra Devi and another (revisionists) challenged the order dated 6.10.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Prayagraj in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2025 (State Vs. Bindra Devi and others; case crime no. 303 of 2018; Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC; Police Station Bara, District Prayagraj) rejecting their discharge application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in which they submitted that no Section 308 IPC offence was made out against them warranting exoneration. FIR (incident 3.11.2025 at 9 hours; registered 4.11.2025 at 13.51 hours) named Bindra Devi, Kamlesh, Ram Nath and Suresh; after investigation charge sheet was filed against Suresh @ Surendra, Bindra Devi and Rohit under the same IPC sections; per the radiologist report the injured Fula Devi, aged about 65 years, had suffered fracture (R) neck of femur in (R) hip joint. Holding: ample power subsists under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add or alter the charge at any stage of trial; on the available evidences and the nature of the injuries there is no illegality in the impugned order; criminal revision dismissed accordingly. No precedent was cited or engaged with.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8211 of 2025

Bindra Devi And Another

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prem Shankar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 91

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

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

Under challenge is the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Prayagraj, in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2025 (State Vs. Bindra Devi and others), arising out of case crime no. 303 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, Police Statin Bara, District Prayagraj rejecting the discharge application of the revisionists under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

The FIR has been registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC against Bindra Devi, Kamlesh, Ram Nath and Suresh/Suresh on 4.11.2025 at 13.51 hours in respect of an incident occurred on 3.11.2025 at 9 hours.

It is alleged by the complainant that Kamlesh, Prem Nath and Suresh/revisionist no. 2 who were having lathi and danda came to the door of the complainant and consistently beaten his wife. When my mother tried to save her, then Suresh/revisionist no. 2 had hit the complainant's mother Fula Devi by lathi, which was hit on her back and it was fractured, she fell down on the spot and become unconscious.

After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Suresh @ Surendra, Bindra Devi and Rohit, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC.

CRLR No. 8211 of 2025

2

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that revisionists have filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. mentioning that no offence is made out against them under Section 308 IPC, hence it shall be exonerated.

Learned trial court has passed an order that as per information, there were some dispute with regard to fetching of water by the wife of the complainant, accused persons hurling abuses and when she obstructed, then the accused persons beaten her seriously and caused serious injuries. Complainant has supported the prosecution story during investigation. As per Radiologist report, injured Fula Devi aged about 65 years has suffered fracture (R) neek of femer in (R) hip joint.

The injured has suffered serious injury and she is aged about 65 years. The court is having enough and ample power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add or alter the charge at any stage of the trial. Whereas on the basis of available evidences and the nature of the injuries, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 6.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Prayagraj, in Sessions Trial No. 1046 of 2025 (State Vs. Bindra Devi and others), arising out of case crime no. 303 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, Police Statin Bara, District Prayagraj. Hence the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

December 12, 2025

M. Tarik

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad