RAJENDRA KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the III Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in whose court the appeal is pending, has not consi dered the controversy in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not examine Dr. Dean in defence and the petitioner was under the impression that merely filing a certified copy of the injury report in defence, will be sufficient and it need not to be proved.

(3.) UNLESS statement of Dr. Dean as a defence witness is recorded and the iujury report is proved in accordance of the provisions of the Evidence Act, the Fame cannot be read. As a matter of the fact it is the duty of the prose cution to have proved this report by Dr. Dean when he has been examined as prosecution witness because the Ex. Kha-7 injury report was already on this, file. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur has not critically examined the facts of the case and did not appreciate the law applicable.