Others v. State of U.P. and Others) filed by co on 22 Aug 2025

Judgment

1. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by way of filing his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, who appeared along with Shri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present revision has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and grounds stated in this criminal revision, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Court of Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Case No.1915 of 2025 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No. 454 of 2023 under Section 323, 504, 354-B, 452, 307 IPC, PS: Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki with all consequential facts in the interest of justice."

4. Criminal Revision No. 896 of 2025 (Bhupendra Kumar Singh And 2 Others Versus State of U.P. and Others) filed by co-accused has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025, which reads as under:- Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 "1. by way of filing his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty who appeared along with Shri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.32263 of 2023, arising out of FIR No.454 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under. (i) On 19.04.2023 at about 14:50 hours an FIR was registered as FIR No.0454 of 2023 at P.S.- Kotwali, District – Barabanki, under Sections 323, 504, 354-Kha, 308 I.P.C.. (ii) After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’) submitted charge sheet against accused/revisionists/Prachi Verma @ Prachi Singh, Sushila Devi and Bhupendra Kumar Singh for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. and also against co- accused-Yogendra Singh Verma for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 307, 354-Kha, 452 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Barabanki.

(iii) It is to be noted that names of all the above named accused find place in the FIR. (iv) It is also to be noted that the charge sheet which ought to have been brought on record has not been brought on record by the revisionists. (v) After filing of charge sheet, an Application u/s 482 No.9699 of 2024 was filed. At this stage, on being asked, learned counsel for the revisionists says that this application was filed by Sushila Devi and Prachi Verma alias Prachi Singh. This Court taking note of the facts as indicated 2 passed an order on 13.11.2024 and subsequently passed the order dated 25.11.2024 in which order dated 13.11.2024 has been referred. The order dated 25.11.2024 is extracted hereinunder. “1. On 13.11.2024 following order was passed:- "1. Heard.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 32263 of 2023 (State Versus Prachi Verma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 454 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Barabanki pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Barabanki as well as impugned summoning order dated 18.12.2023 and charge-sheet no. 697 of 2023 dated 20.08.2023 under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. against the applicants filed by the Investigation Officer.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and respondent no.2 are neighbours and some quarrel was taken place between them. Thereafter, at the behest of some political leaders, the F.I.R. of the case was lodged by the complainant of the present case against the accused persons. The medico legal examination of the injured persons was conducted, in which, simple injury was found on the body of the alleged injured persons. It is further submitted that name of one Ram Vilas Verma was entered in emergency register of Barabanki District Hospital of date 19.04.2023 at 3:15 P.M. at serial No. 12 bearing I.D. No. 21167. As complaint of pain was reported by Ram Vilas Verma as well as his B.P. was found 110/70 mmhg, he was referred to K.G.M.U. for examination. Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention of the Court on the discharge slip of Ram Vilas Verma, in which, his I.D. No. is shown as 21168, however, in the emergency register of date 19.04.2023, again I.D. No. 21168 is mentioned at Serial No. 16 in the name of Ram Vilas Tripathi who was brought to emergency at 4:00 P.M. in unconscious condition and was referred to R.M.L./K.G.M.U., Lucknow. It is next submitted that complainant of the present case is also a political leader who used influence and obtained some interpolation in the documents.

4. List this case on 25.11.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

5. Chief Medical Officer as well as Chief Medical Superintendent, Barabanki District Hospital shall ensure production of relevant emergency register of date 19.04.2023 with entries from 2:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. and shall also ensure production of relevant record related to discharge of Ram Vilas Verma whose name is mentioned at Serial No. 12 bearing I.D. No. 21167 in the emergency register of date 19.04.2023.

6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps be taken against the applicants.

7. On the next date, the parties present today shall again appear in person before this Court."

2. In pursuance of earlier order, Dr Sanjeev Kumar, the then Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital Barabanki and Sri Ram Pratap Singh, Pharmacist, who is maintaining the record in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki are present along with relevant record.

3. A specific question was asked from Sri Ram Pratap Singh that as to why he came from the Hospital, then he replied that no ministerial staff was available and at present he is maintaining the record in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, therefore, he came to the Court.

4. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for complainant is taken on record.

5. Ten days' time is granted to learned counsel for applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

6. List immediately thereafter.

7. The Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki shall also file counter affidavit explaining that how many Pharmacist are working in his office.

8. Original record produced before this Court is returned to the officer concerned.

9. The Officer present today need not appear again unless called for.

10. Interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date of listing.” Before proceeding further, it is to be mentioned at this stage that based upon the pendency of (vi) the Application u/s 482 No.9699 of 2024 and the order passed therein, it has been argued that the injury reports are manipulated and ought not to have relied upon while dealing with the application seeking discharge. 3 (vii) In response, this Court put a query to the learned counsel for the revisionists that as to whether this Court in the Application u/s 482 No.9699 of 2024 has passed any order based upon which the trial court was under obligation to ignore the injury reports on record (viii) Learned counsel for the revisionist, in response to above, fairly submitted that no such order has been passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.9699 of 2024 and the said application is still pending. (ix) The Magistrate taking note of the fact that the case is triable by court of Sessions, committed the matter to the Sessions Court and before the Sessions Court the case was registered as Session Case No.1915 of 2024 (State Vs. Prachi Verma & others). (x) Before the Sessions Court, the applicants, who according to the learned counsel for the revisionists are on bail, preferred an application seeking discharge in terms of Section 250 B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 227 Cr.P.C.). This application is on record as Annexure No.1. The prayer of this application is relevant and being so the same is extracted hereinunder. यह कि(cid:4) प्रार्थी(cid:8)गण (cid:4)े “10. भा०द०कि(cid:12)० (cid:4)े आरोप से डि स्चार्ज$ कि(cid:4)ये र्जाने (cid:4)ी आ(cid:12)श्य(cid:4)ता है।" कि(cid:12)रूद्ध धारा 307 भा०द०कि(cid:12)० (cid:4)ा (cid:4)ोई आरोप गकि(cid:24)त नहीं होता है। प्रार्थी(cid:8)गण (cid:4)ो धारा 307 (xi) only with regard to the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and not for the other offences. From the aforesaid prayer sought, it is apparent that the discharge application was moved (xii) A perusal of the para 5 of the affidavit of this application as also the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists indicates that the application seeking discharge for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was moved on the basis of the fact(s)/grounds which are as under. (a) Injuries sustained by the injured persons, who were examined by Dr. Sanjay Kumar, were simple in nature. (b) There was overwriting/manipulation in the Medical Register of Emergency Room of District Hospital, Barabanki. (c) As per Medical Register of Emergency Room of District Hospital, Barabanki, entry at Serial No.12 regarding I.D. No.21167, 3:15 P.M. indicates that Ram Vilas Verma was discharged after taking note of the fact that he sustained simple injuries and the name of this very injured finds place at serial no.16, I.D. No.21168 4:00 P.M. which indicates that he was unconscious and referred to RML/KGMU, Lucknow. (d) The injury report does not support the contents of the FIR as it was lodged promptly at 14:50 hours and the incident was of 12 noon, and the injury report indicates that the injury could be sustained before 12 hours. The prayer is to interfere in the matter.

5. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the present application. It is stated that to attract the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. even injury is not required what to say about the nature of injury and only intention has to be gathered. To ascertain the intention, the evidence is required and the trial court could conclude in the manner after taking note of the evidence adduced by the parties during trial before the trial court which includes the evidence of the accused applicants/revisionists herein and accordingly, no interference is required in the matter.

6. It is further submitted that the manipulation if any in Medical Register is also required to be considered during trial and at this stage, i.e. the stage of seeking discharge, no observation or finding on this aspect of the case is required to be given by the trial court.

7. It is further submitted that the injured persons, namely, Ram Vilas Verma and Smt. Sushila Verma and also the victim/Priya Verma supported the story of the prosecution and it is settled proposition that the statement/testimony of the injured witness/victim has greater evidential value and the same could be ignored in exceptional circumstances by the trial court after assessing the evidence of parties at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. In this regard reference is to the judgment passed in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355.

8. It is also submitted that from a perusal of statement of Dr. Alankar Kumar Gupta, Gastro Surgeon, Chandan Hospital, Lucknow (Annexure No.6), would indicate that injured/Ram Vilas Verma sustained serious/grievous injury as this injured was operated for treating the damage caused to his small intestine by the accused and this aspect of the case is also evident from Annexure No.8 to the instant application, which is copy of case summary of injured/Ram Vilas Verma. It is also stated that FIR is not encyclopedia and only placing reliance on the same conclusion

9. should not be drawn on issue related to offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

10. In rebuttal, Shri Chakravarty, learned counsel for the revisionists stated as under. 4 (i) The injuries/nature of injuries ought to have been considered while dealing with the application seeking discharge after taking note of various provisions of Indian Penal Code, i.e. Section 319 to Section 338 and other sections which include Section(s) 307 and 308 I.P.C. (ii) It is also stated that without ultrasound of abdomen, how the Doctor could conclude that small intestine has been damaged and no findings with regard to the grievous injuries have been recorded by the concerned Doctor. (iii) The trial court erred in law and fact both in not considering the statement(s) of the injured witnesses in its true spirit.

11. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

12. The present case relates to Section 307 I.P.C. and for coming to the conclusion as to whether the trial court has rightly rejected the application seeking discharge only with regard to offence under Section 307 I.P.C. it would be appropriate to refer Section 307 IPC as also the some pronouncements on the issue.

13. Section 307 I.P.C. reads as under: ‘307. Attempt to murder.—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. Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. Illustrations (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.’ In State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil [State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, 14. (1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320], Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not necessary that a bodily injury sufficient under normal circumstances to cause death should have been inflicted : “9. … To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. (emphasis supplied)” In State of M.P. v. Saleem [State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329],

15. Hon'ble Apex Court held thus : “13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (emphasis supplied)” In Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 : (2015) 16. 4 SCC (Cri) 425], Hon'ble Apex Court held that to establish the commission of an offence under Section 307, it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted : 5 “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.” In State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434, the Hon'ble Apex Court identified

17. the essential ingredients for the applicability of the section. The relevant extract is as below: “The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as : (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.”

18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72, as far back as 1961, observed the constituents of the Section, having referred to various judgments of the Privy Council, as under: “a person commits an offence under Section 307 when he has an intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. It is to be clearly understood, however, that the intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in Section 300. The intention to commit an offence is different from the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that offence. The expression “whoever attempts to commit an offence” in Section 511, can only mean “whoever : intends to do a certain act with the intent or knowledge necessary for the commission of that offence”. The same is meant by the expression “whoever does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of murder” in Section 307. This simply means that the act must be done with the intent or knowledge requisite for the commission of the offence of murder. The expression “by that act” does not mean that the immediate effect of the act committed must be death. Such a result must be the result of that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time.” (Emphasis supplied)

19. In Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that the nature or extent of injury suffered, are irrelevant factors for the conviction under this section, so long as the injury is inflicted with animus. It has been held: “10. …To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. …What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.” In the case of State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors. (2009 4 SCC 26), the scope of intention for

20. attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC was elaborated and it was held as under:- 6 "13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.