Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18341 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 348 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sher Bahadur Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order, notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S.) has been filed assailing the order dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 04, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 843 of 2022 - State Vs. Sher Bahadur Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 325 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Kurebhar, District - Sultanpur, thereby application for discharge preferred by the revisionist has been rejected. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that first information report was lodged against the revisionist on 22.09.2021, with regard to an incident which allegedly had taken place on 20.09.2021, against 11 persons including revisionist herein, being Case Crime No. 325 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Kurebhar, District - Sultanpur, alleging that revisionist alongwith 10 other persons had assaulted the complainant and his family members with lethal weapons. It was stated that the dispute was with regard to embezzlement of money meant for Garam Sabha projects during the period when the revisionist was working as Pradhan. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that during the said alleged assault, number of persons had received injuries. An application for discharge was preferred by the revisionist. The trial Court while rejecting the application by means of impugned order dated 04.02.2025, has taken note of the entire facts emanating out of the first information report and the charge sheet has been submitted by the Police. It was noticed that two of the injured persons were medically examined and it was found that they had received serious injuries on hand and X-Ray were also produced alongwith the said charge sheet. 6. The only issue which has been canvassed by the revisionist is that from the material available on record, no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out and consequently, the trial Court has erred in rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist. 7. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that with regard to allegations under Section 307 IPC are concerned, it has been recorded that for invocation of the said Section intention will have to be seen and finding in that regard can be recorded only after examining the material which has been adduced during the trial and the trial Court was of the view that such a finding cannot be recorded at the initial stage of discharge and accordingly on this ground has rejected the prayer made by the revisionist. 8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that from the material on record, the trial Court should have allowed the discharge with regard to Section 307 IPC. 9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision by submitting that with regard to section 307 IPC, prayer made by the revisionist has not been categorically rejected, but only consideration has been recorded and it is only at the appropriate stage the trial Court will be at liberty to examine the material on record and pass appropriate orders. He has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S.). 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is noticed that while rejecting the application for discharge, the trial Court has looked into all the material and also considered the statements of injured witnesses and injuries sustained by them. In view of the arguments raised by the revisionist with regard to invocation of Section 307 IPC, against the accused/revisionist, it is noticed that the trial Court has stated that the said issue can be determined only after sufficient evidence is adduced. 12. This Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as, satisfaction can be recorded by the trial Court only after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of discharge itself. 13. With regard to injuries and other aspects including the intention of the accused will have to be examined by the trial Court before returning a definitive finding with regard to Section 307 IPC. 14. In view of above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The present revision being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench