Dismissed¶33

Kamlesh Kannaujiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2026CRLR/949/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.), February 9, 2026, dismisses Kamlesh Kannaujiya's Criminal Revision No. 949 of 2026 challenging framing of charges under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC by Session Judge, Maharajganj; discharge refused; charge-stage standard: prima facie evidence or strong suspicion sufficient; no mini trial; FIR consistency, head and abdomen injuries, weapon, and Section 65-B pen-drive CCTV footage upheld the charges.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible; any final interpretation, adjudication or appreciation of facts and evidence would not be justifiable at this stage. ¶31

Kamlesh Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 949 of 2026

Kamlesh Kannaujiya

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Pawan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶9

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

¶10

Under challenge is the impugned order order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Session Judge, Maharajganj in Session Trial No. 2002 of 2025 (arising out of crime no. 215 of 2024). Under Section 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 L.P.C., police station- Ghughuli, District Maharajganj, State versus Kamlesh Kannaujiya by which the learned trial court has frame the charges against the revisionist.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, opposite party no. 2 lodged a First Information Report against the revisionist, alleging therein that on 18.05.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., when he left his house and went towards the road to call his brother, the village pradhan's son, Kamlesh Kanaujiya, son of Shrikant Kanaujiya, suddenly arrived on his motorcycle and started honking repeatedly. When the informant questioned him, he began abusing and misbehaving with him. Upon objection, Kamlesh Kanaujiya allegedly caught hold of the informant's hand, assaulted him, and threatened to kill him. It was further alleged that he had misbehaved with the informant on several occasions earlier. It is also alleged that while Kamlesh Kanaujia was fleeing from the spot after assaulting the informant, the villagers attempted to apprehend him. At that time, he allegedly took out a sharp-edged weapon from his motorcycle and attacked the villagers, as a result of which Jitendra Maddesiya, son of Chhotelal Maddesiya, sustained a fatal head injury, and Ajay Kumar Maddesiya, son of Dinanath Maddesiya, also suffered a head

CRLR No. 949 of 2026

injury.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there is no injury on the injured person sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC. At best, the case may fall under Sections 323 or 324 IPC. He has further submitted that the revisionists have been falsely implicated due to enmity, and the injuries have been exaggerated. As such, they are entitled to be discharged.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has contended that there are serious injuries on the vital parts of the injured, particularly on the abdomen. The injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which supports the prosecution version as stated in the FIR from the very beginning. The injury reports and statements of both factual and formal witnesses support the prosecution case. The charge sheet has been filed after due investigation. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Injured Ajay Kumar has sustained three injuries which are as follows:

¶18

Abrasion with mild contuse swelling present on forehead above proximate aspect of left eyebrow size 2.5 cm x 0.3 em clot present Raddish in colour.

¶19

Mild contusion swelling present left size root of nose size 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm light Raddish in Colour.

¶20

Mild Abrasion present at lower aspect at right knee Joint size 0.3 cm x 0.1 cm Raddish In colour C/O Pain.

¶21

As per the opinion of the doctor, all above Injury are simple in nature due to present of hard and blunt object.

¶22

As per CHC Ghughuli Maharajganj, Medico Legal Report, injured Jitendra Maddesiya is having three injuries, which are as follows;

¶23

Deep Incised wound size size 7.5 cm x 0.3 cm present back central part of pustule closed with the stitched 5 in no, minor bleeding present c/o vertigo. Adv. for CT Scan head & expert opinion.

¶24

Deep Incised wound present on left lower lateral aspect of the abdomen, size 4.5 cm x 5 present, stich 2 in no,minor bleeding present Adv. U,S.G abdomen & expert opinion.

¶25

Abrasion present on Right Thumb size 2 cm x0.1 liner reddish in colour.

¶26

C.T. Scan report of injured Jitendra Maddesiya is also filed.

¶27

It is evident from the record that there is consistency in the averments

¶28

CRLR No. 949 of 2026

¶29

¶30

made in the FIR, which was promptly lodged by opposite party no. 2/complainant. There was enmity between the parties. The CCTV footage shows the accused, Kamlesh Kannaujiya, holding a bakuwa in his hand and chasing the injured, and in the photograph he is seen standing with a knife. The video and photograph were saved on a pen drive and signed by the injured, Jitendra Maddesiya, under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement of Ajay Kumar has also been recorded, and he has supported the prosecution case regarding the injuries caused by the revisionists/accused. The injuries are on the head and abdomen, as mentioned above in detail.

¶31

A mini trial is not permissible at this stage. Any final interpretation, adjudication, or appreciation of facts and evidence would not be justifiable at this stage.

¶32

It is settled law that for framing of charge, prima facie evidence or even strong suspicion is sufficient. In the present case, there is consistency in the averments of the FIR lodged promptly by the complainant, which are supported by the weapon, injury reports, and evidence collected during the investigation.

¶33

In view of the above, the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

February 9, 2026 M. Tarik

¶35

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶36

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

Kamlesh Kannaujiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kannaujiya 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

Dr. Farahim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpendra Chahar @ Kd vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Zakir vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others