Dismissed¶15

Santram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2026CRLR/3011/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

criminal revision; discharge application rejected; Sections 304, 452, 506 I.P.C.; Session Trial No. 1180 of 2026; Case Crime No. 302 of 2020; Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor; prima facie case; discharge stage scrutiny; no appreciation of evidence at discharge; fall from roof; no inquest or post-mortem; Covid protocol; lathi-danda; iron rod; P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma; injury report; Section 200 Cr.P.C.; Section 202 Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; protest application; final report; summoning order; Allahabad High Court; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; dismissed at admission stage; May 12, 2026.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of discharge the material on record is to be scrutinized only with a view to find out a prima facie case, and no appreciation of evidence, as during the course of trial, is required at this stage. ¶14

Santram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the revisionists' discharge application despite the contention that the deceased's injuries resulted from a fall from the roof and that no inquest or post-mortem was conducted. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The learned trial court took into consideration the facts and the statements of witnesses while deciding the discharge application; there is no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 11.03.2026, and the revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶14

Key takeaways

On the statements recorded before the trial court there is allegation that the revisionists made assault with lathi-danda and iron rod causing injuries, and P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma, who provided treatment, examined the injuries and supported his version of treatment.ratio¶13
All the witnesses supported the version of 'maar-peet' (assault) with lathi-danda and iron rod.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.): Criminal revision against rejection of the revisionists' discharge application in Session Trial No. 1180 of 2026 (State Vs. Santram and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 302 of 2020 under Sections 304, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor, dismissed at the admission stage. Held: (i) at the stage of discharge the material on record is to be scrutinized only with a view to find out a prima facie case, and no appreciation of evidence, as during the course of trial, is required; (ii) the trial court had considered the facts and the statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 under Section 202 Cr.P.C., including P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma who examined the injuries; all witnesses supported the version of assault (maar-peet) with lathi-danda and iron rod; (iii) there is no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 11.03.2026, the revision being devoid of merit.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3011 of 2026

¶2

Santram And 2 Others

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Sandeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 86

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision against the order passed by the learned trial court dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 1180 of 2026 (State Vs. Santram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 302 of 2020 under Sections 304, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor by which the discharge application has been rejected by the learned court.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case the learned trial court has not considered the material on record but passed the order in question illegally. He also submits that the deceased fell from the roof and sustained injuries, as a result he died but in counter blast present F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite parties in which after investigation no offence was found to be made out and final report was filed. The protest application was filed on the part of the informant which was treated as complaint in pursuance to which statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the learned trial court and then summoning order was passed. The summoning order was challenged before this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of with direction to the revisionist to approach the learned trial court and move an application for discharge that was moved by them before the learned trial court which was rejected and is in question. He also submits that no inquest or post-mortem of the deceased was got done, therefore, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was caused by the present revisionists by causing injuries to him but the injuries were result of falling from the roof. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts but passed the order in question erroneously, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 11.03.2026 and

¶9

CRLR No. 3011 of 2026

¶10

¶11

allow the revision.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the informant lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionists for causing injuries to the deceased and then to fall him from the roof inside the house. He was taken to the hospital where injuries were examined by the doctor Sanjay Sharma who has been examined before the learned court as P.W. 3 and supported the version that there were injuries on the head and injuries were dangerous to his life. The injury report also shows four injuries on the person of the deceased in which one was on head and other was on forearm, wrist joint and on leg ankle joint. The nature of injuries falsifies the contention made by the revisionists that the injuries were caused on the person of the deceased by falling from the roof. He also contends that P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 has supported the prosecution version and clearly contended that the revisionists made assault on the deceased with lathi danda and iron rod and caused injuries. He also contends that at that time due to Covid protocol inquest and post-mortem was not got done. The learned trial court has considered all these facts while passing the order in question. There is no any illegality in the order.

¶13

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the statements of the informant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses from P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 as recorded before the learned trial court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it transpires that there is allegation against the revisionists that they made assault with lathi-danda and iron rod causing injuries on his person who was taken to the hospital and provided treatment by P.W. 3 Dr. Sanjay Sharma who examined the injuries and also supported his version of treatment and also the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Since all the witnesses have supported the version of making maar-peet with lathi-danda and iron rod, therefore, at this stage it would be assumed that the injuries were not caused in the manner as narrated by the complainant and also by other witnesses.

¶14

The order passed by the learned trial court also shows that all these facts and the statements of witnesses were taken into consideration by the learned court while passing the order in question and then application was decided. At the stage of discharge the material on record is to be scrutinized only with a view to find out prima facie case and no appreciation is required at this stage as during the course of trial. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 11.03.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶16

May 12, 2026 Suraj Srivastav

¶17

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram and 2 Others 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

Sarjan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarjan vs State of U.P. and Another

Arsh Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustakeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another