- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava is present for the revisionist and A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) REVISIONIST has been convicted under Sections 323,324, and 294,1. P. C. on the allegation that he outraged the modes ty of Km. Anita and when she protested he resorted to violence. At the appellate stage on applica tion was filed on behalf of the revisionist that Km. Anita is not the daughter of Jai Chand as alleged in the F. I. R. and permis sion was sought from the appellate Court to lead additional evidence. That applica tion has been rejected. Under the circumstances of the case, this is not the crux of the matter whether Km. Anita is the daughter of Jai Chand or the daughter of late Asha Ram. She may be the adopted daughter of Jai Chand or she may have been brought up by Jai Chand. In a case under Sections 323, 324, and 294,1. P. C. , it is not important as to what is the real name of the father of the girl-
(3.) LEARNED Counsel has cited State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr. , in support of the contention that the additional evidence can be led before the appellate Court. A perusal of the case shows that the evidence which was ad mitted was of a formal character and to remove a technical defect. Revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. Revision Dismissed. .;