HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1605 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused. 2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No. 1, Azamgarh in Case No. 1079 of 2025 (State vs. Banti @ Mritunjay) under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 110 of the B.N.S., Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 0463 of 2024, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionists has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists have been charge-sheeted under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 110 of the B.N.S. It is further submitted that, as per the F.I.R., the injured had become unconscious due to the injury. The injury report of the injured, Sumit Kumar Tiwari, was prepared at PHC Rani Ki Sarai on the basis of the Majroobi Chitthi, and it was mentioned in the General Diary of the police station that there was no report regarding the consciousness of Sumit Kumar Tiwari in his injury report. It is further submitted that, as per the report of the X-ray technician/radiologist of District Hospital, Azamgarh, no fracture of the skull bone was found in the X-ray reports of Sumit Kumar Tiwari and Harikesh Tiwari. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 110 of the B.N.S. provides that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act he caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 5. It is next submitted that, from a perusal of the injury reports and the statement of the doctor, it is clear that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and would not cause death. However, the learned trial court, without properly considering the medical evidence, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Pandey, Aqueel Ahmad, G.A. Banti Alias Mritunjay And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. opposed the revision and contended that there is no requirement of a specific grievous injury for attracting the offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S. It is further contended that the injuries were caused on the head, which is a vital part of the human body, and such an injury may prove fatal at any stage. He next contended that the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged; therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that as per the injury report of Harikesh Tiwari, he sustained injury on the skull and X-ray was advised. Injured Harikesh Tiwari has sutained three injuries, which are as follows: (1)A lacerated wound on left to midline on forhead sized about 4 cm x 0.5 cm. (2) Complaint of pain on left side of chest. (3) Swelling in right side and complaint of pain. For injury (1) ref. to District Hospital for X-ray skull with expert opinion. 8. Injured Sumit Kumar Tiwari has also sustained four injuries, which are as follows: (1) A lacerated wound of sized about 9 cm in length x 1.5 cm with on tap of skull. (2) Swelling present over back of head. (3) Contusion on left shoulder sized about 13 cm x 2.5 cm. (4) Contusion on right shoulder sized about 11 cm x 2.5 cm. 9. Both the injured persons were advised to undergo X-ray examination of the skull. 10. As per the X-ray report of Sumit Kumar Tiwari, no obvious bone injury was found. However, the injured HarishTiwari sustained multiple contusions over in area measuring about 9 cm × 7cm over back. 11. Madhubala has sustained two injuries which are as follows: (1) Swelling of diameter of about 2 cm on left side of forehead above left eye. (2) Complaint of pain in back. 12. Meena Tiwari has sustained three injuries which are as follows: (1) Abrasion of side about 1 cm x 0.1 cm on left wrist. CRLR No. 1605 of 2026 2 (2) Complaint of pain on left shoulder. (3) Complaint of pain in neck. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionists further argued that there are only general allegations against the revisionists and there is no specific averment as to who were the assailants. 14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the statement of the doctor has been filed as Annexure-6 to the criminal revision. A specific question was put to Dr. Rohit Mishra regarding the injuries sustained by the injured persons, namely Sumit Kumar Tiwari and Harikesh Tiwari. Both the injured persons had sustained injuries on their heads and were advised to undergo an X-ray examination and were referred to District Hospital, Azamgarh. The doctor stated that the head is a vital part of the human body and that injuries caused to it may prove fatal to life. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the injuries sustained on the heads of the injured persons could be fatal. 15. From the material available on record, it further transpires that several injuries were sustained in the said incident. Two injured persons sustained lacerated wounds on their heads. Since the head is a vital part of the human body, any injury caused to it may prove fatal at any stage. A specific role has also been assigned to the revisionist. However, the veracity of the allegations is a matter of evidence which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. March 10, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 1605 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad