Ravi Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act/Rape-II, Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 412 of 2023 (State vs. Chintamani and Another), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2020, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in this case the main injured is Gyanendra who has suffered seven injuries. The injury no. 1 is shown as "lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm morsel deep on forehead 3 cm above tress root of nose KUO advice X-ray". Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that neither X-ray report or CT scan report about the fracture of the injured has been filed on the record despite it the charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) who has conducted the investigation in the said case his record is not clear and he has been already dismissed and even in this investigation he was directed to do the investigation properly.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied that the I.O. has recorded the statement of Dr. Ran Bahadur Yadav and Dr. Udaybhan Singh, Medical Officer Trauma Centre Varanasi, whereas, he has relied on the report obtained by R.T.I. from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi that since 01.01.2020 till this date any doctor in the name of Dr. Udai Bhan Singh has

¶13

CRLR No. 1480 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

not been appointed. He has further relied on the letter dated 17.07.2021 that Dr. A.K. Patel has not been appointed at Amar Shahid Umanath Singh District Hospital Jaunpur since 2020 till this time. He has further relied on C.D. No. 10 that despite all efforts of the I.O. neither X-ray nor C.T. Scan report of injured Gyanendra has been received.

¶16

It is contended that in the absence of the material documents relating to the X-ray as well as CT scan, the alleged injury to Gyanendra is not admissible in evidence and no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision deserves to be allowed

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon the injury report of Gyanendra and the NCCT Head Report dated 22.05.2020, which is signed by Dr. Udai Bhan Singh and relates to injured Gyanendra, CT No. 248629, of Trauma Centre, Super Speciality Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U., Varanasi. Hence, prima facie it appears that the NCCT head examination of injured Gyanendra was conducted at the aforesaid Trauma Centre and the radiological report has been signed by Dr. Udai Bhan Singh. The same cannot be ruled out at this stage. As per the said NCCT head report, the impression shows a depressed fracture on the left side of the frontal bone.

¶18

The injury report dated 22.05.2020 of Gyanendra, prepared at Government Male Hospital, Shahganj, Jaunpur, records seven injuries, which are as follows:

¶19

L/w of size 3 cm x 1 cm morsel deep on forehead 3 cm above tress root of nose KUO advice X-ray.

¶20

Radish contusion swelling of size 5 cm x 4 cm as forehead just above from root of nose.

¶21

L/w of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm over Lt index injury. Adv. X-ray.

¶22

Motile abrasion on Nose.

¶23

Abrasion of nose 4 cm x 0.5 cm on Lt forehead 2.5 cm below form Lt shoes joints.

¶24

Cap is Rt. Leg.

¶25

Cap is Rt. knee joints.

¶26

There is an injury caused on the forehead of the injured Gyanendra, and as per the NCCT head report, a depressed fracture on the left side of the frontal

¶27

CRLR No. 1480 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

bone has been specifically mentioned. The head is a vital organ of the human body, and any injury caused on the head which leads to a fracture could be fatal at any stage.

¶30

The final appreciation of evidence is not justifiable at the stage of discharge of the accused or framing of charge. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt during trial, and the revisionist will have ample opportunity to defend himself during the course of trial.

¶31

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶32

The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶33

March 12, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶34

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Raman and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar ( Akhilsh Kumar Singh ) vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shambhu Paswan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Paswan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem vs State of Up and Another