JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lalitput in S.T. No.481 of 2022 crime no.189 of 2020 U/s 308/34, 325/34, 323/34, 504 & 506 IPC P.S. Mehrauni, District Lalitpur. By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the discharge application filed U/s 227 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist accused.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that FIR of this case was lodged U/s 325, 323 & 504 IPC only. The injury report of the injured reveals that there is no serious injury which may come in the purview of Section 308 ICP. The injury of Anshul is lacerated wound of size 3 cm skin deep. So from this injury, no offence U/s 308 IPC is made out. Only one injured has suffered a fracture. All the injuries of remaining injured are simple in nature. So at the most, offence U/s 323, 325 & 504 IPC is made out. The Investigating Officer in improper manner has added section 308 & 506 IPC in the charge-sheet. The revisionist have filed an application 5 kha for discharge. It is also contended that persons of revisionist's side has also suffered injuries and the cross-case NCR No.200 of 2020 U/s 323 & 504 IPC was also registered against the complainant side. The real story is that several civil and revenue litigations are pending between the parties and due to this enmity, the complainant side has attacked the accused side. The complainant has suffered injuries while fleeing from the spot and they have got registered a false FIR. The learned court below without considering the averments made in the discharge application and the evidence available on record, has rejected the discharge application. The impugned order is unjust and improper and is not sustainable.

4. Learned AGA submitted that one of the injured Anshul has suffered head injury and his NCCT Brain Report shows extradural hemorrhage and fracture. Several other persons have also suffered injuries in this incident. So there is no ground to discharge the revisionist accused. From the evidence on record, offence U/s 323, 325, 308, 504 & 506 IPC is made out. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. The revisionists-accused are named in the FIR and prosecution case is that they hurled abuses to Smt. Ram Dulari the wife of the complainant and started to assault her, when Anshul, Narendra, Anantram, Prabhudayal, Maherndra Kumar and Devendra came to rescue, then the accused persons also assaulted them with lathidanda causing injuries. The injury reports of Narendra Kumar, Mahendra Kumar, Devendra Kumar, Prabhudayal, Smt. Ram Dulari and Anshul are part of the record. Injured Prabhudayal, Smt. Ram Dulari and Anshul has suffered head injuries. It also appears from the perusal of the record that injured Anshul was referred to medical college Jhansi and his NCCT Brain Report mentions extradural hemorrhage, sub arachanoid hemorrhage, FEW FOCI of hemorrhage contusions, associated fractures. His C.T. scan report also indicates non-displaced fracture at right temporal bone. So it is clear from the injury report of Anshul that he has suffered serious head injuries which may be fatal.

6. It also appears from the material on record that there are cross-versions. Both the parties have lodged report against each other and which party is aggressor, is a matter of trial. So this cannot be a ground for discharge.

7. Section 308 IPC provides as follows:

"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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with bo