MAWAD DAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the accused against the order of the learned sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 12th of February, 1962.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that the petitioners are undergoing trial for offences under Sections 148, 302, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpui.

(3.) ON 5-2-62, the Public Prosecutor presented an application requesting the trial court to permit him to prove detailed injuries received by P. Ws. Bachna, dhanroop and Gajja by examining Dr. A. M. Singhvi. Learned Counsel for the accused contested this application on the ground that copies of the injury reports were not supplied to his clients before the said three injured persons were examined in the court. In the alternative it was urged thai it" the prosecution was permitted to produce fresh evidence, the accused should be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine all the eye-witnesses again. The learned Sessions judge allowed the Public Prosecutor to produce detailed injury reports in evidence and get them proved by Dr. A. M. Singhvi. The prayer of the accused for recalling the eyewitnesses for cross-examination was refused.