HANUMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kharalia submitted that the accused persons suffered injuries and a cross FIR, No. 240/94 was registered at P.S. Raisinghnagar, on the basis of which, after investigation challan was submitted before the Magistrate. He did not commit the case to the learned Sessions Judge though the present case was committed. However, after trial acquittal was recorded in that case. He also submitted that the accused persons suffered injuries and Dr. Bansal (PW 10) had examined their injuries. He submitted that when Dr. Bansal was examined before the trial court, the file of the Magistrate's Court relating to cross case could not be made available and he could not be cross-examined. Therefore, the application under Sec. 311 Cr.PC. should be allowed and Dr. Bansal should be called for further cross-examination.

(3.) On the other hand. Shri Garg submitted that this is a clear case of rs filling up of lacuna and this Court in many reported and unreported cases held that such lacuna should not be filled.