PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the accusation that on 7.11.85 at 10.30 A.M. Pratap Singh had fired a shot from his illicit pistol on Lal Singh, he was charged, tried and convicted under Sec. 307 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 17.8.87 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. After hearing him on the question of quantum of sentence he directed him to be released on probation vide order of the same date. It is that judgment and order of the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh which has been challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help have examined the judgment of both the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the learned counsel for the accused had admitted the genuineness of the F.I.R., site plan and entries in General Diary, at the trial the learned trial court should have got them formally proved by examining the concerned witnesses and that having not been done, the defence has been greatly and materially prejudiced inasmuch as there was no opportunity to cross-examine 'those witnesses on behalf of the accused. He has placed reliance on a Single Judge Bench Judgment of this Court, namely, Viri Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1992 (29) ACC 50 .' I have carefully examined the above said judgment. The facts of that case are tengent apart from those of the case in hand. Therein, the genuineness of the injury report and the report of the Radiologist had not been disputed by the learned counsel for the accused but the court had however noticed variance between ocular statements of the witnesses and medical report and under those circumstances it was held by this court that the case should be remanded for examination and cross-examination of the Doctor, Radiologist and the Investigating Officer. Here in this case, no such variance between oculars statements of the witnesses and the above mentioned documentary evidence has been pointed nor noticed by the Courts below and, therefore, there arise no necessity of remanding the case for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses concerned.

(3.) Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that revisional power of the High Court is as wide as the power of the appellate Court and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside in exercise of the said power.