Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4730 of 2022

Revisionist :- Miyanu Saroj And 6 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajit Kumar Pathak

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the

informant/opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

2.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order

dated 14.10.2022, passed by the leaned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in S.T. No.

307 of 2022, (State of U.P. Vs. Miyanu Saroj and others), arising out of Case

Crime No. 197 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 308

IPC, P.S. Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, whereby the application filed by the

accused-revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge under Section

308 IPC has been rejected.

3.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned

order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The first

information report of this case was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 452,

323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C. making false and baseless allegations. It was

pointed out that in the alleged incident, five persons were shown injured but

no injured person has sustained any such injury which may be dangerous to

life. In x-ray report of injured Kripa Devi, fracture of both radius and ulna

was shown. In x-ray report of injured Pooja, fracture of ulna was shown. In

the x-ray report of injured Sobhnath, no fracture was found. Learned counsel

submitted that there was no fracture in the parietal bone or in any other bone

of the head and there was no such injury which may be dangerous to life and

thus, no case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out and, therefore, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the

informant/opposite party No. 2 have opposed the revision and argued that in

the alleged incident, five persons have sustained injuries including fractures.

After proper investigation, revisionists were charge-sheeted for the offences

under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 308 I.P.C. It was submitted that

the court below has observed that in his statement Dr. Kamlesh Kumar has

stated that there were three injuries on the head of injured Sobhnath and the

said injuries were dangerous and capable of causing death of the injured. It

was further submitted that in view of that statement of the doctor, a case

under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out. It was also pointed out that earlier the

revisionists have filed a 482 Cr.P.C. application no. 31867/19 before this

Court for quashing of charge-sheet and that application was rejected by co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order date 19.08.2019. Referring to the

facts of the matter and material collected during investigation, it was

submitted that a prima facie case under Section 308 IPC is made out against

the revisionists. It was further submitted that the trial court has considered all

relevant facts and material while rejecting the application of revisionists for

discharge and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5.

I have considered rival submissions and perused record.

6.

It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or considering

discharge application, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on

record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the

stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain

of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration of an

application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that

the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and

documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts

emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the

existence of all the ingredients co