HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7844 of 2025 with CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6734 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. These criminal revisions have been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Fatehpur in S.T. No.986 of 2025 (State vs. Sher Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur by which discharge application has been rejected and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an F.I.R. was lodged u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. for causing injuries to the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shweta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chetan Chatterjee, G.A. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shweta Pandey, Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Himanshu Singh Yadav Alias Puneet Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Sher Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) deceased by the revisionists. The injuries were found on non-vital parts of the body of the injured but were on hands and legs. During the course of treatment, there was surgical operation conducted by the doctor and then there was septicemia as a result the deceased died after gap of one month form the date of incident. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. u/s 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C. An application for discharge was moved before the learned court with prayer to discharge the revisionists since offence u/s 304 I.P.C. is not made out. Learned trial court did not consider the correct position of law and also the facts of the case and the fact that death was caused as a result of septicemia but not as a result of injuries caused on his person by the revisionists. In this way, the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned trial court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He has relied his argument on the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5146 of 2025 Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal in para no.14 & 15 in which it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will result in conviction or acquittal. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case though the injuries were not on vital parts of the body but there were five fractures and the hands and legs of the deceased were fractured as a result of injuries caused by the revisionists to him regarding which he was admitted into the hospital and treatment was provided but he could not recover and died even after proper treatment. The doctor providing treatment also opined the cause of death to be the result of ante-mortem injuries and septicemia. Even in the post-mortem the cause of death was found to be shock and septicemia due to ante-mortem injuries. In this way, the death of the deceased cannot be said to be the result of of septicemia only but it is related to the ante mortem injuries on his person. At this stage, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was the result of septicemia only and there was no relation with ante-mortem injuries. This fact cannot be decided at this stage but it is possible during the course of trial after the examination of medical expert. In this way, the learned trial court has considered all the material present on record and then CRLR No. 7844 of 2025 2 passed the order in question and there is no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it transpires that in this case the deceased was assaulted with lathi and danda by the revisionists and injuries were caused on his person those were grievous in nature though on legs and hands. The condition of the injured was too critical as a result he was admitted in the hospital and was provided treatment for a month and he was also subjected to surgical operation, thereafter, there developed septicemia resulting into his death. The cause of death in post-mortem was found to be shock and septicemia due to ante-mortem injuries. The statement of the doctor providing treatment to the injured was also recorded by the I.O. in which he opined clearly that the deceased died on account of septicemia as a result of injuries on his person. There is nothing on record to suggest that death of the deceased was result of septicemia only and there was no relation between the injuries on his person and septicemia resulted into his death. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is expected to find out prima facie case and even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in the aforesaid case that if two views are possible and one of them suggests about the suspicion only then the court can discharge the accused. At this stage, the court is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. The order passed by learned trial court shows that the learned court has considered the material on record in view of law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases regarding discharge and framing of charge and then passed the order in question. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 30.09.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these criminal revisions are dismissed at the admission stage itself. May 12, 2026 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 7844 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad