HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1470 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 7.1.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur whereby the application moved by the revisionists under Section 251 of BNSS in Session Case No. 2811 of 2025 ( State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Paswan and others), arising out of case crime No. 487 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) of BNS, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 7.1.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and without application of judicial mind. There is neither any injury nor evidence which is led to the offence under Section 307 IPC, hence the criminal revision is entitled to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that according to the prosecution, the opposite party no.2- Smt. Pratibha Devi has lodged the FIR on 16.7.2025 at about 8 O'clock. It has been alleged that due to old enmity, the accused Shambhu, Pannelal, Chandan and Surendra resident of her own village assaulted to her husband Mukesh Paswan with iron-rod, lathi and danda with intention to kill him due to which he received grievous injuries on his head and thereby he was became unconscious. It is further stated that Dhananjay and Pankaj Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lalita Mishra, Rajnish Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shambhu Paswan And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) reached there to intervene in the matter, then the accused persons also beaten them using abusive language by which both have also received injuries. 5. As per prosecution, the injuries of injured persons, namely, Mukesh, Pankaj Pawan and Dhananjay were examined at AIIMS, Gorakhpur on 16.7.2025, according to which, Mukesh has received two injuries, Pankaj has received one injury and Dhananjay has received two injuries. The injured Mukesh has got head injury and he was advised NCCT of Head and thereafter, CT Scan of head was took place on 16.7.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the prosecution has submitted the injury and CT Scan reports and doctor who has examined the injured, he has not gave his opinion that these injuries were fatal to the life of injured person. He, therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision is entitled to be allowed. 7. Learned AGA has opposed the criminal revision and submitted that all the injured persons have received injuries and even injured Mukesh has got injuries on his head which is vital part of the body. The CT Scan of injured Mukesh also took place where head injury has also been specifically mentioned in the said report. 8. There are three injured in the said case and injured Mukesh has got head injury.The head injury is verified by CT Scan report also. The head is important organ of the human body and the injury caused on the head may be fatal at any stage. 9. Section 307 IPC reads as under:- 307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1 [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned." CRLR No. 1470 of 2026 2 10. There is prima facie case of Section 307 IPC is made out. The final appreciation of evidence is not justifiable at this stage. The revisionists are having all opportunities to lead his evidence or controvert the evidence led by the prosecution at appropriate stage in the trial before the learned trial court. 11. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. March 12, 2026 sfa/ CRLR No. 1470 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad