Dismissed¶21

Pappu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026CRLR/1183/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed — rejection of application for further investigation under Section 193(9) B.N.S.S. upheld — incident held to fall under Section 105 B.N.S., 2023 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) — FIR under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Case Crime No. 310 of 2025, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh — allegation of death by falling under dumper tyre after altercation over collection of soil — Sessions Trial No. 3019 of 2025 — no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

On the genesis of the incident and the statement of the eyewitness recorded during the investigation, the incident appears to fall under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder). ¶21

Pappu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1183 of 2026

Pappu

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Arun Kumar Pal, Yadvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 3019 of 2025 (State vs. Nitin @ Nikki and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2025, under Section 105 of the B.N.S., Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, with a prayer to remand the matter back to the learned court below to reconsider the application of the revisionist under Section 193(9) of the B.N.S.S. during the pendency of the present criminal revision.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that an application under Section 193(9) of the B.N.S.S. was filed for further investigation, which has been rejected. It is further submitted that the ingredients of murder were very much in existence since the inception. The FIR was lodged under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. by the revisionist against Nikki (revisionist no. 1), Chhotey Fauji, Babban Chaudhary (revisionist no. 2), and Sachin (revisionist no. 3). It is alleged that the brother of the deceased, Pawan, was murdered by the accused persons using a JCB.

¶11

After a detailed investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 105 of the B.N.S. against opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the statement of an eyewitness recorded during the investigation, who was the driver of the dumper (U.P.81 CT-9393), stating that there was a dispute regarding the collection of soil from the place. The accused persons told Pawan that they would collect the soil first. At the same time, Nikki, Chhotey Fauji, and Sachin pushed Pawan, as a result of which he fell under the tyre of the dumper (U.P.81 CT-9393), which was being driven by Praveen Kumar, son of Late Genda Lal. Pawan died after falling under the tyre of the dumper. It is evident that there was no intention to commit murder, but due to the

¶13

CRLR No. 1183 of 2026

¶14

¶15

altercation that took place between them, Pawan came under the tyre and the said incident occurred. This fact is supported by the statement of the eyewitness recorded during the investigation.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

¶17

Section 193(9) B.N.S.S.S provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (7) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (3):

¶18

Provided that further investigation during the trial may be permitted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may extend with the permission of the Court.

¶19

Section 105 of B.N.S. provides for Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶20

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

¶21

As per the genesis of the incident and the statement of the eyewitness recorded during the investigation, the incident appears to fall under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023. The trial is yet to begin, and the charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, there is neither any irregularity nor illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶22

February 17, 2026 M. Tarik

¶23

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhi Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rahul Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius vs State of U.P. and Another

Vidhi Narayan Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another