RAM BAHADUR MAJHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that ap­plicant is not named in the F.I.R. it is al­leged that the applicant was last seen in the company of the deceased in a drunken state. The deceased had suffered one injury on his forehead. His viscora was preserved it has been contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case showing recovery of master card of the de­ceased from his possession.