Allowed¶17

Ram Briksha Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026CRLR/6209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRLR/Criminal Revision No. 6209 of 2024; Ram Briksha Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others; Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J.; decided 23.04.2026; charge framing; application under Section 227; Section 308 IPC; injury report of Brij Bhushan; injuries dangerous to life; C.T. Scan left parietal region; order of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh dated 19.10.2024 set aside; fresh order directed; appearance on 21.05.2026; informant's revision allowed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; impugned order dated 19.10.2024 set aside; trial court directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations; parties directed to appear before the trial court on 21.05.2026. ¶17

Ram Briksha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6209 of 2024

Ram Briksha Yadav

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Azaz Ahmad, Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Mohan, Suneel Kumar Yadav

¶8

Court No. - 45

¶9

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. R.K. Gupta, leaned A.G.A. for O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 and perused the record.

¶11

The revisionist Ram Briksha Yadav has approached this court challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh (herein above referred as "trial court"), whereby the trial court has decided the application under Section 227 moved by O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 and opined that there is no material evidence to frame the charge under Section 308 IPC against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the informant has filed the present criminal revision on the ground that there is clear cut injury disclosed in the injury report of injured Brij Bhushan, but the same has been ignored by the trial court. The injury report of Brij Bhushan is available at pages 45, 47, 49 of the paper book, wherein the C.T. Scan report shows injuries on the left parietal region of brain. Such injuries appears to be dangerous to life. During statutory investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of doctor concerned who clearly opined that such injuries is dangerous to life. But the trial court did not consider the same which is against the medical standard. Thus the present revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this court.

¶13

CRLR No. 6209 of 2024

¶14

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 to 5 vehemently opposed the criminal revision but could not dislodge the aforesaid submission.

¶16

In view of above, in my opinion the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for revisionist are clearly borne out from the record.

¶17

Accordingly, the criminal revision has force and deserves to be allowed. Since the impugned order has been passed ignoring the injury report available on record, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made herein above.

¶18

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.05.2026.

¶19

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)

¶20

April 23, 2026 RPD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Briksha Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Briksha Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Similar cases

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Rajat Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Ramchet and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Urmila Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another