BACHNOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. I. Jafari, J. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State at length.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the occurrence had taken place about five years back. Besides, it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case Medical Examination was conducted by Medical Officer on 15-10-1983 at 11. 05 a. m. while the report of the occurrence was lodged the same day at 6. 15 p. m. IT has further been pointed out by the learned counsel that it was stated by the complainant that he was medically examined by the Doctor after he had been assaulted at 4. 00 p. m. on 15-10-1983. The learned trial court taking into consideration this conflict in the statement of the Doctor and the complainant, summoned the Doctor during the course of arguments. The Doctor, however, stuck to what he had eanier stated that he had examined the complainant at 11. 05a. m. on -5-10-1983.