Nikhil @ Nikki And Another State of U.P. and Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mayank Yadav

Baghpat in S.T. No.1231 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.906 of 2024 (State Vs. Nikhil @ Nikki and others), under Sections 333, 131, 115(2), 105, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that no offence is made out under Section 304 IPC against the revisionists. There is delay in the registration of the FIR. He has submitted that this is a counter blast FIR. The deceased died due to illness and septicemia. He has not suffered any injury and he has not died due to any injury. He has further submitted that the accused/revisionists are not named in the FIR. He further relied on the complaint filed by the deceased, wherein it is stated that, as per the role attributed to the revisionists, no injury was caused to him.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the deceased has suffered the hidden injuries. The incident took place on

01.10.2025. There is an FIR lodged by him too. The incident is same day and at same time. The son of the deceased Bittu has firstly given an application on 01.10.2024, thereafter, before the Tehsil diwas but his FIR has not been registered, hence, the application was filed under Section 2 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 173(4) B.N.S.S.. He further relied that in the videography, the deceased has suffered no injury even he is participating in the incident. There are two FIRs arising out of the same incident; it can be determined at the stage of trial, who was the aggressor.

5. As per contents of the FIR, the FIR was lodged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 131, 118(1), 115(2), 110, 105 of B.N.S. on 25.10.2024 against Deepak @ Kuldeep, Raju, Nikhil @ Nikki, Babita and Munni. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant Pramod Kumar, resident of District Muzaffarnagar, Village Barauda, Police Station Budhana. On

01.10.2024, opposite party Deepak @ Kuldeep, Raju son of Harishchandra, Nikhil @ Nikki, Babita wife of Deepak, Munni wife of Niranjan had break the lock of complainant's father-in-law and after entering the house, they had attacked with intention to kill the complainant's father-in-law, Krishnapal. In incident, complainant's brother-in-law Rajiv @ Kallu was also hit by sharp weapon on his head and the bone of his head got fractured. All the accused persons with common intention and jointly seriously beaten the complainant's father-in-law, Krishnapal. Due to that, pus was formed after blood had entered the stomach of informant's father-in-law. He was admitted at Sriram Murti Hospital at Bareilly, where he had died on

24.10.2024 at 10:00 PM during his treatment. Another FIR No.835/2024 was registered on 04.10.2024. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 333, 131, 115(2), 105, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. against accused Nikhil @ Nikki and Deepak @ Kuldeep, charge sheet has been filed against Neetu Sharma, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and charge sheet has been filed against Divya Sharma @ Munni daughter of Niranjan under Sections 331, 115(20, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S.

6. Section 304 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that no offence under Section 105 of the B.N.S. is made out. The injury report of Smt. Mahabiri is on record. The statement of complainant Pramod Kumar, during investigation under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he has specified the role of the accused persons, stating that they had beaten the deceased Krishnapal, and that due to those injuries, internal bleeding occurred in the stomach, which subsequently developed into pus. He was 3 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 admitted in Sriram Murti Hospital and he died during his treatment on

24.10.2024. The eye witness Ramesh Chandra, Salim and Pratap had supported the prosecution version that the accused persons hit the leg and lathi into the stomach of deceased Krishnapal. From the perusal of the video filed by the Investigating Officer, the presence of Krishnapal deceased at the spot was shown. There are cross FIR of the incident, hence, the presence of deceased Krishnapal at the place of incident could not be ruled out. There is consistent treatment of the deceased and as per medical report of the deceased Krishnapal suffered intestinal perforation septicemia and septic shock and as per C.T. scan report of deceased, there is finding of intestinal obstruction.

7. During the investigation, Dr. Nitik Bathla has recorded his statement that he admitted the deceased Krishnapal on 21.10.2024 and after C.T. scan on 23.10.2024, it was found that his intestine were ruptured and attached with each other. Hence, infection was occurred. Thus, the said injury was caused by any incident 10 to 12 days before due to pressure in the stomach for injury caused to the stomach. Hence, he was referred to Higher Centre of Shriram Murti Memorial Hospital. Dr. Amit Kumar has recorded his statement that the deceased Krishnapal was admitted in serious condition on 23.10.2024 at 8:30 PM due to severe pain in his stomach and infection in his intestine. He was operated due to infection in his intestine but operation was not successful due to septicemia and he died.

8. There is consistent averments since the registration of the FIR and there is consistency in the statement of the prosecution witnesses as well as independent witnesses. They have supported the prosecution version. The deceased was suffering from internal injury in his stomach and duration of the injury is closed to the date of incident. Any final finding could not be given at this stage but the evidences produced by the prosecution till this stage are sufficient to frame charges. In the charge sheet offences are against the revisionists.

9. In view thereof, neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Session Trial No.1231 of 2025 (State Vs. Nikhil @ Nikki and 4 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 others). Hence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. December 9, 2025 Mini (Abdul Shahid,J.)

Baghpat in S.T. No.1231 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.906 of 2024 (State Vs. Nikhil @ Nikki and others), under Sections 333, 131, 115(2), 105, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that no offence is made out under Section 304 IPC against the revisionists. There is delay in the registration of the FIR. He has submitted that this is a counter blast FIR. The deceased died due to illness and septicemia. He has not suffered any injury and he has not died due to any injury. He has further submitted that the accused/revisionists are not named in the FIR. He further relied on the complaint filed by the deceased, wherein it is stated that, as per the role attributed to the revisionists, no injury was caused to him.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the deceased has suffered the hidden injuries. The incident took place on

01.10.2025. There is an FIR lodged by him too. The incident is same day and at same time. The son of the deceased Bittu has firstly given an application on 01.10.2024, thereafter, before the Tehsil diwas but his FIR has not been registered, hence, the application was filed under Section 2 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 173(4) B.N.S.S.. He further relied that in the videography, the deceased has suffered no injury even he is participating in the incident. There are two FIRs arising out of the same incident; it can be determined at the stage of trial, who was the aggressor.

5. As per contents of the FIR, the FIR was lodged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 131, 118(1), 115(2), 110, 105 of B.N.S. on 25.10.2024 against Deepak @ Kuldeep, Raju, Nikhil @ Nikki, Babita and Munni. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant Pramod Kumar, resident of District Muzaffarnagar, Village Barauda, Police Station Budhana. On

01.10.2024, opposite party Deepak @ Kuldeep, Raju son of Harishchandra, Nikhil @ Nikki, Babita wife of Deepak, Munni wife of Niranjan had break the lock of complainant's father-in-law and after entering the house, they had attacked with intention to kill the complainant's father-in-law, Krishnapal. In incident, complainant's brother-in-law Rajiv @ Kallu was also hit by sharp weapon on his head and the bone of his head got fractured. All the accused persons with common intention and jointly seriously beaten the complainant's father-in-law, Krishnapal. Due to that, pus was formed after blood had entered the stomach of informant's father-in-law. He was admitted at Sriram Murti Hospital at Bareilly, where he had died on

24.10.2024 at 10:00 PM during his treatment. Another FIR No.835/2024 was registered on 04.10.2024. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 333, 131, 115(2), 105, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. against accused Nikhil @ Nikki and Deepak @ Kuldeep, charge sheet has been filed against Neetu Sharma, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and charge sheet has been filed against Divya Sharma @ Munni daughter of Niranjan under Sections 331, 115(20, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S.

6. Section 304 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that no offence under Section 105 of the B.N.S. is made out. The injury report of Smt. Mahabiri is on record. The statement of complainant Pramod Kumar, during investigation under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he has specified the role of the accused persons, stating that they had beaten the deceased Krishnapal, and that due to those injuries, internal bleeding occurred in the stomach, which subsequently developed into pus. He was 3 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 admitted in Sriram Murti Hospital and he died during his treatment on

24.10.2024. The eye witness Ramesh Chandra, Salim and Pratap had supported the prosecution version that the accused persons hit the leg and lathi into the stomach of deceased Krishnapal. From the perusal of the video filed by the Investigating Officer, the presence of Krishnapal deceased at the spot was shown. There are cross FIR of the incident, hence, the presence of deceased Krishnapal at the place of incident could not be ruled out. There is consistent treatment of the deceased and as per medical report of the deceased Krishnapal suffered intestinal perforation septicemia and septic shock and as per C.T. scan report of deceased, there is finding of intestinal obstruction.

7. During the investigation, Dr. Nitik Bathla has recorded his statement that he admitted the deceased Krishnapal on 21.10.2024 and after C.T. scan on 23.10.2024, it was found that his intestine were ruptured and attached with each other. Hence, infection was occurred. Thus, the said injury was caused by any incident 10 to 12 days before due to pressure in the stomach for injury caused to the stomach. Hence, he was referred to Higher Centre of Shriram Murti Memorial Hospital. Dr. Amit Kumar has recorded his statement that the deceased Krishnapal was admitted in serious condition on 23.10.2024 at 8:30 PM due to severe pain in his stomach and infection in his intestine. He was operated due to infection in his intestine but operation was not successful due to septicemia and he died.

8. There is consistent averments since the registration of the FIR and there is consistency in the statement of the prosecution witnesses as well as independent witnesses. They have supported the prosecution version. The deceased was suffering from internal injury in his stomach and duration of the injury is closed to the date of incident. Any final finding could not be given at this stage but the evidences produced by the prosecution till this stage are sufficient to frame charges. In the charge sheet offences are against the revisionists.

9. In view thereof, neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Session Trial No.1231 of 2025 (State Vs. Nikhil @ Nikki and 4 CRLR No. 7038 of 2025 others). Hence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. December 9, 2025 Mini (Abdul Shahid,J.)