HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 899 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, even in the revised call, however learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Prayagraj in Session Trial No. 2669 of 2023 (State vs. Shanu @ Samar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., P.S. Utraon, District-Prayagraj, wherein the discharge application moved by the revisionists has been dismissed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that in the said Case Crime No. 12 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C. a discharge application was filed before the court concerned. He next contended that, so far as the Section 308 I.P.C. is concerned, the same is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as much as the injuries sustained by the informant / opposite party no. 2 are simple in nature and as such no injury whatsoever has been noted as major head injury. Even if, it is presumed that, there was some head injury, no fracture has been noted in the said injury report and in the absence of, there being no fracture, caused in the head, no provision of Section 308 I.P.C. are attracted and hence no case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shamshad Ahmad Sanu @Saman @ Samar @ Mohd Samar And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that, as far as the nature of injuries are concerned, a prima facie case has been made out against the revisionists and whether the injuries are simple in nature or otherwise, the same is the subject matter of trial and cannot be looked at the stage of framing of charge, therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.02.2024 is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and particularly the medical report, which is the basis and foundation of attracting Section 308 I.P.C., a clear cut case has to be made out that, there was a fracture or any head injury leading to such fracture. As per the medical report dated 13.01.2018 and supplementary medical report dated 25.01.2028, no such injury or fracture has been found on the head of the informant, hence the provision of Section 308 I.P.C. are not applicable and attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case and hence the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the extent of attracting Section 308 I.P.C. are liable to be quashed and set aside. However, Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are concerned, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter. 7. The revision stands disposed of as stated above. September 23, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 899 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad