Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Session Judge, Court No.1 Jhansi in S.T. No. 257 of 2015 (State vs. Azhar and others) under Sections 149, 302, 500, 506, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No.0157 of 2015 whereby a prayer is made that the said judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 be set aside and court below be directed to summon Dr. R.P. Kala for taking his evidence.
(2.) It is mentioned in the memo of revision that bare perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased of Mohd. Rashid would show that Dr. R.K. Saxena had made contradictory statement before the court as PW-4 which does not support the postmortem report with regard to injury no. 3. The trial court illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application No.121-B vide impugned order dated 7.12.2017 on the ground that the injuries of 1998 were not related to the present incident. The fire arm which has been recovered is 315 bore by which the incident has been carried out. The statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena has tried to mislead by saying that injury no. 2 is communicating to injury no. 3, which is an old injury which had been treated by Dr. R.P. Kala in the year 1998 as has been admitted by Dr R.K. Saxena in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. Therefore, in view of the statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena mentioned above, it was necessary to examine Dr R.P. Kala who had treated the deceased Mohd. Rashid in 1998 to prove that the injury no. 3 was an old injury because that would be necessary for proper and just adjudication of the present trial and would be helpful to punish the real culprit who has committed murder of Mohd. Rashid. It is further stated that the revisionist is ready to bear the expenses of the witness Dr R.P. Kala who would be the star witness of the case to ascertain whether the injury no 3 is old one or is communicating to injury no. 2, since 24 pallets have been recovered from injury no. 3.
(3.) From the side of the opposite party no.2, Azhar, a vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Amit Daga which is taken on record. No counter affidavit has been filed by him but he has orally made argument opposing the present revision vehemently.;