- (1.) S. I. Jafari, J. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State at length. In the instant case, occurrence took place as for back as on 15-10-1983 wherein the complaint Shunni sustained incised and another injury and his arms were also found to be fractured upon X-ray examination. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case, convicted applicant to undergo one vear's R. I. under Section 324, I. P. C. and six month's R. I. under Section 325/34, I. P. C. However the learned Magistrate extended the benefit of U. P. first Offender's Act to Smt. Parsauti wife of Bachnoo applicant. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the applicant came up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge wherein the order of conviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, However, the learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit of Probation of First Offender's Act to Gaya Prasad. The learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on applicant Bachnoo.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the occurrence had taken place about five years back. Besides, it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case Medical Examination was conducted by Medical Officer on 15-10-1983 at 11. 05 a. m. while the report of the occurrence was lodged the same day at 6. 15 p. m. IT has further been pointed out by the learned counsel that it was stated by the complainant that he was medically examined by the Doctor after he had been assaulted at 4. 00 p. m. on 15-10-1983. The learned trial court taking into consideration this conflict in the statement of the Doctor and the complainant, summoned the Doctor during the course of arguments. The Doctor, however, stuck to what he had eanier stated that he had examined the complainant at 11. 05a. m. on -5-10-1983. I have devoted by anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter and in any judgment, it appears that Doctor has put the time of examination incorrectly due to inadvertence. Under the circumstances, I do not attach much importance to this aspect of the matter i. e. the conflict between the time of examination and the time of assurrance.;