HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5268 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 25.7.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 1299 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Vilas and others), arising out of case crime no. 717 of 2021, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 3. The main grievance of the revisionist is that the murder weapon was not sent by the Investigating Officer for FSL report. He has referred the testimony of Tulsi Ram Pandey - PW-7, the Investigating Officer, who at page 4 of his testimony, has made a statement that the murder weapon was not sent by him for FSL report and no FSL report was made available to him while investigating the matter. The trial court erred in passing the impugned order, which suffers from infirmity and lack of judicial mind and warrants interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Yadav, Vijay Bahadur Yadadv Ram Vilas .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that PW-9 S.I. Brijmohan Chaudhary has made statement that the murder weapons were sent for FSL report. He further states that the said murder weapon is available before him at the time of his testimony and he has proved it as material exhibit 2 and material exhibit 3. He has also identified the same before the trial court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the murder weapons were never sent for FSL report. Moreover, at pages 81 and 82 of the criminal revision / affidavit the FSL report is very well available and the same has been exhibited by the concerned witness as Ext. ka-14. The said report has been sent by the Deputy Director, FSL to C.O. Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat. Further, the aforesaid submissions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist may be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. In this revision it cannot be decided as to who was the person who sent the murder weapon for FSL report as it is a matter of trial. 7. In view of the above discussion, in my view the impugned does not suffer from infirmity, illegality or perversity. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 9, 2025 safi CRLR No. 5268 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad