JUDGMENT :

SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Rajneesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by Sessions Court, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 772 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 1247 of 2015 u/s 323 & 308 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Padrauna, District-Kushi Nagar.

3. By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the application of the revisionists u/s 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them of the offence.

4. The facts relating to the case in brief is that the informant Ram Chandra Kushwaha s/o Late Shiv Shankar, on being summoned by the Gram Sewak, Devendra Mishra, reached District Headquarter with his son Mithilesh. When he reached there, Gram Sewak, Devendra Mishra, accused Hrishikesh, Ajay and Pankaj started making enquiry about the work done in the village. The accused assaulted them with rod, lathi and danda causing head injury to them. Due to the assault of the accused, tension spread in the village. The accused are violent and criminal in nature. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Case Crime No. 1247 of 2015 u/s 323, 308 I.P.C. was registered against Hrishikesh, Ajay and Pankaj in P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District-Kushi Nagar on 25.08.2015 at 7 p.m.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that without considering the evidence on record, the trial court illegally rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. It has next been submitted in the medical examination report dated 25.08.2015 that the injuries of Mithilesh Kushwaha and Ram Chandra Kushwaha are simple in nature. In the x-ray report, no fracture was found on the persons of the injured. No injury was found on the vital part of the body of the informant and his son. It has also been submitted that the informant Ram Chandra Kushwaha has merely reiterated the facts given in the report. It has also been submitted that in the statements of prosecution witnesses, Mahendra and Buneli, only general allegations have been made. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the scuffle. It has also been submitted that in the second statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of informant Ram Chandra Kushwaha, he has for the first time mentioned that the accused with the intention to kill his son had caused injury on his neck. The injured Mithilesh Kushwaha in his statement dated 22.11.2015 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has merely repeated the statement of his father, informant Ram Chandra Kushwaha. The other prosecution witnesses, namely, Habib Ansari and Sagar in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.2015 have made specific allegations only against Hrishikesh regarding his attacking the injured with a rod. The other prosecution witness, Jitendra Madheshiya, in front of whose shop the scuffle took place has also made general allegations against the accused. It has also been submitted that since injuries caused to the injured, Ram Chandra Kushwaha and Mithilesh Kushwaha are simple in nature, therefore, offence u/s 308 I.P.C. is not made out against the accused. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has not produced any incriminating material or evidence to establish the ingredients of Section 308 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Trilok Chand and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2011 SCC Online Raj. 121.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. submitted that after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the Investigating Officer, the trial court has rightly rejected the application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists. The revision is devoid of any merit and it should be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists, lea