UMED SINGH Vs. DEVI SINGH
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S.Lodha, J. -
(1.)This revision has been filed by the complainants Umed Singh, Mohan Singh Madho Singh against the order of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, rejecting the application of the Public Prosecutor for additional evidence u/s 311 Cr. P.C.
(2.)The accused-non-petitioners are facing trial for offences u/ss 307, 323 I.P.C. and u/s 25 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the accused persons on account of a quarrel in respect of a bada attacked the complainant party with swords. Devi Singh is alleged to have given a sword blow on the hand of Madho Singh and the other accused persons are said .to have given sword blows to other complainants. The injured Madho Singh was admitted to the military hospital and the other injured persons were taken to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The evidence of the prosecution had come to an end and the accused persons have also already been examined and their defence evidence was also over. At that stage, the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. on 16.8.83 requesting the court to call the doctor of the military hospital who admitted Mohan Singh and treated him there along with the bed head ticket and the injury report in evidence. A prayer was also made to call some other doctor of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital with the bed head ticket of another injured Mohan Singh. It was mentioned in the application that it appeared that the police did not collect this evidence during the investigations but for the sake of justice and for the proper decision of the matter, this evidence was most relevant and the court should call the same. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, the learned AddI. Sessions Judge rejected the application He was of the opinion that the prosecution had tailed to establish that this evidence was necessary for a just decision of the case. He was also of the opinion that the application was belated and the necessary particulars about the names of the doctors etc. who were sought to be summoned had not been mentioned Aggrieved of this order, the complainants have filed this revision.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.