- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the III Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in whose court the appeal is pending, has not consi dered the controversy in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not examine Dr. Dean in defence and the petitioner was under the impression that merely filing a certified copy of the injury report in defence, will be sufficient and it need not to be proved. A perusal of the order dated October 12,1992, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, will go to show that Ex K. ha-7 is the certi fied copy of the statement of Dr. Dean, who has been examined as PW-4 in cross case, which was filed by the petitioner. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur was under the impression that the certified copy of the statement of Dr. Dean will be read in evidence in defence case. Under this impression the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, hearing appeal has dismissed the application of the petitioner on. the ground that this certified copy of statement of Dr. Dean, can be read in evidence in defence i n the present case though proved in an other case.
(3.) UNLESS statement of Dr. Dean as a defence witness is recorded and the iujury report is proved in accordance of the provisions of the Evidence Act, the Fame cannot be read. As a matter of the fact it is the duty of the prose cution to have proved this report by Dr. Dean when he has been examined as prosecution witness because the Ex. Kha-7 injury report was already on this, file. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur has not critically examined the facts of the case and did not appreciate the law applicable. The document proved in one case or evidence recorded in one case cannot be read in evidence in another case.;