Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

The basic facts of the case are that the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.03.2025, on the date of the incident itself, under Sections 352, 351(2), and 109(1) B.N.S. The F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the named accused persons, namely Rajendra Fauji, Prem Kumar, and two unknown persons.

¶11

The revisionists, Rajendra Singh Fauji and Prem Kumar, are named accused in the F.I.R. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that no firearm injury was caused to any injured person, whereas the injury reports show that the injuries were caused by a blunt object. Although the F.I.R. alleges firing, no firearm injury has been found on any injured person. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is the foundation of the prosecution case, though it is not an encyclopaedia.

¶13

An application under Section 250 B.N.S.S. was filed seeking discharge of the revisionists/accused, particularly Rajendra Singh, praying that he be exonerated from the charge under Section 109(1) B.N.S.

¶14

It is alleged that two days after the incident, on 28.03.2025, the applicant/revisionist Rajendra Singh was arrested from his house, and his licensed .32 bore pistol was seized and connected with the said crime.

¶15

CRLR No. 779 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Section 109(1) B.N.S. reads as under:

¶18

" 109. Attempt to murder.-(1) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."

¶19

As per the allegations in the F.I.R., no firearm injury was caused. Therefore, the absence of firearm injuries in the medical reports supports the contents of the F.I.R. Investigation has been conducted and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶20

Prima facie, intention to commit murder is an essential ingredient of Section 109(1) B.N.S. Final appreciation of evidence is to be undertaken after completion of the trial. At the stage of discharge, no final findings can be recorded.

¶21

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, where the F.I.R. was lodged promptly against the named accused persons and the charge sheet has been filed against them, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶22

Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶23

February 4, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

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

Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another 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

Nekpal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangam Lal Aarak vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Uttam vs State of Up and Another

Sarveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murari Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others