The court determined that at the discharge stage, only a prima facie case is considered, and sufficient evidence of grievous injury justified framing charges under attempted murder.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Shahid, J.

1. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 6.

2. The revisionist/complainant has filed the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.4.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2025 (State vs. Subedar Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.18 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur, whereby the Trial Court has discharged the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 from the offence punishable under Sections 307 IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that FIR dated 20.1.2024 was registered as Case Crime no.18 of 2025, under Sections 395 IPC at Police Station Khutahan District Jaunpur. The FIR was lodged by the revisionist/complainant with the allegations with regard to the occurrence dated 19.1.2024 at 11.00 p.m. nominating the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and one Arvind Singh with the narrative that in the night of 19.1.2024, when the revisionist was returning after getting his brothers Sudhakar Upadhayay and Diwakar Upadhayay admitted in a hospital, then the accused persons started chasing them in three vehicles, during which the opposite party No.2/ Subedar Singh resorted to firing upon the revisionist/complainant. Then the revisionist/complainant tried to save his life by taking refuge in Police Station Khutahan; in spite of that, undeterred the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 also forcefully entered into police station. The accused persons started assaulting the revisionist/complainant and his brothers inside the police station with lathi and sticks, but because of the intervention of the police, lives of the revisionist and his brothers were saved. During continuance of said occurrence, the left hand of the revisionist was fractured and Rs.11,000/- was also looted away by the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6.

4. Leaned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.4.2025 is bad in the eyes of law, illegal having apparent illegality and jurisdictional error, which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that injury report of the revisionist/complainant was prepared and four injuries were found in his injury report; the injured- Sudhakar Upadhayay has got two injuries in his injury report and the injured-Divakar Upadhyay has also got two injuries.

5. It is further submitted by the leaned counsel for the revisionist that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the revisionist, who categorically stated that the accused persons were firing upon the vehicle of the revisionist with the intention of committing his murder and during the actual course of the occurrence within the police station, it was exhorted that the revisionist and others be done to death. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Constable, Sonu Yadav posted at the Police Station Khutahan, who supported the case of the revisionist. On the basis of the said statement and other evidence collected, the Investigating Officer converted the case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 IPC. The Investigating Officer also recorde