Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M. Chand & Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 817 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 4776 (19 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.11

Criminal  Revision No. 817 of 1988

Uttri Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and another.


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

The charges under section 307 read with Section 149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. were framed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur against the revisionists. Feeling aggrieved by the framing of the charge, and the order directing the framing of the charge the four accused (revisionists) have come up in revision.

None is present for the revisionists even on the revision of the list.

The copies of the injury reports of the injuries sustained by Ram Briksh and Moti Chand are not  filed by the revisionists along with the revision nor the injures are reproduced in the memo of the revision and the affidavit.

In court below the argument of the revisionists' counsel was that the injuries sustained by Ram Briksh and Moti Chand were not the injuries of the nature which may warrant the framing of the charge for offence under section 307 I.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, rejected the said argument stating that the injury reports of Ram Briksh and Moti Chand were considered and that he has also considered the written report and the statements of the witnesses; that on the basis of consideration of that record the prima facie case was made out that the accused persons had intended to commit the murder of the injured persons. He, therefore, framed the charge under section 307 I.P.C.

There is nothing in the memo of the revision and the documents submitted therewith which may show that the conclusion drawn by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,  was erroneous. Hence the revision cannot be allowed. It is dismissed.

Communicate this order to the court below within two weeks.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.