IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.80 of 2025 Shabbu @ Shabbu Ali and others .....Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …..Respondents Presence Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the Revisionists.

Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. D. S. Mehta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the Revisionists under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No.1116 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned trial court framed charges against the Revisionists for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Revisionists seek setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the ingredients of Section

307 IPC are not made out from the material on record.

2. The State’s case, in brief, is that on 28.11.2022 at about 9:30 p.m., an altercation took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital, wherein the accused persons allegedly assaulted the injured using a sharp-edged weapon. On the basis of the written information lodged by the informant, FIR No. 397 of 2022 was registered initially under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The injured was taken to the hospital and was medically examined, whereafter further medical and supplementary reports were prepared.

3. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC and medical documents relating to the injuries sustained by the injured were collected. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the Revisionists for the aforesaid offences.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, whereupon the learned trial court, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the material placed before it, passed the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 framing charges against the Revisionists under Sections

307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the framing of the charge, particularly under Section 307 IPC, the Revisionists have approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision, asserting that the injuries are simple in nature, that the medical evidence does not support an offence of attempt to murder, and that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record properly.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionists submitted that the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 suffers from non-application of judicial mind, as the learned trial court has framed charges under Section 307 IPC without appreciating that the medical and supplementary medical reports describe the injuries as simple in nature. It was contended that none of the injuries were declared dangerous to life or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence of attempt to murder are conspicuously absent.

8. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that the State case is founded on conjectures and exaggerations and that the Revisionists have been falsely implicated due to a prior monetary dispute and personal animosity. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer acted in a biased manner by selectively relying upon a subsequent medical report while ignoring material favourable to the defence, including the injuries allegedly sustained by the Revisionists themselves.

9. According to learned counsel, these circumstances clearly indicate that the State’s version is doubtful and unreliable.

10. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further submitted that mere use of a sharp-edged weapon does not a