CHANDRA BALI Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA for the State.

(2.) SRI U. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite parties has sent illness slip but since after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, I am not inclined to allow the revision, there is no need to hear SRI U. S. M. Tripathi.

(3.) THE judgment and order of the appellate court is challenged mainly on the grounds that a number of independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and there was no cogent reason for disbelieving their testimony and the delay in lodging the First Information Report was fully explained. THE appellate court held that from the perusal of the medical examination report, it does not appear that the incident occurred at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. on 7.1.76. THE appellate court observed that the injuries had pus in them and according to the opinion of the Doctor, in extreme cold pus could not be found within 20 hours. In support of his finding, the learned Judge referred to the observation of Dr. J. P. Modi, in his Text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1949 Ed. at page 221 wherein it was observed that pus appears in about 36 or 42 hours in a wound which has been dirty or which has not been properly treated. THEre does not appear any error on the part of the appellate court in arriving at the finding that the incident does not appear to have taken place on 7.1.76 at 5.00 p.m.