HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6209 of 2024 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. R.K. Gupta, leaned A.G.A. for O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 and perused the record. 2. The revisionist Ram Briksha Yadav has approached this court challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh (herein above referred as "trial court"), whereby the trial court has decided the application under Section 227 moved by O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 and opined that there is no material evidence to frame the charge under Section 308 IPC against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the informant has filed the present criminal revision on the ground that there is clear cut injury disclosed in the injury report of injured Brij Bhushan, but the same has been ignored by the trial court. The injury report of Brij Bhushan is available at pages 45, 47, 49 of the paper book, wherein the C.T. Scan report shows injuries on the left parietal region of brain. Such injuries appears to be dangerous to life. During statutory investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of doctor concerned who clearly opined that such injuries is dangerous to life. But the trial court did not consider the same which is against the medical standard. Thus the present revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this court. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Azaz Ahmad, Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Mohan, Suneel Kumar Yadav Ram Briksha Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 to 5 vehemently opposed the criminal revision but could not dislodge the aforesaid submission. 5. In view of above, in my opinion the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for revisionist are clearly borne out from the record. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision has force and deserves to be allowed. Since the impugned order has been passed ignoring the injury report available on record, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made herein above. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.05.2026. April 23, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 6209 of 2024 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad