SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 1017

AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE
Pappu Govinda Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Pappu Krishna – Respondent


A. S. BHATE, J.

( 1 ) THE petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the complainant in a complaint registered as P. R. C. SR. No. 1 of 1996 pending on the file of the learned III additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, rajahmundry. That is a private complaint filed by the complainant against accused nos. l to 5 for offences alleged under sections 307, 354,147 and 148 I. P. C. The petitioner examined himself under Section 200 cr. P. C. on oath. Thereafter, the petitioner has also examined all the witnesses named in the list along with the complaint. However, due to oversight the name of the Medical officer/doctor, who had examined the victim for purposes of recording the injuries on them, was not named in the list of witnesses and the petitioner prayed to the learned magistrate to permit summoning the said doctor for examination under Section 202 cr. P. C. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer by observing that the said doctor was not cited in the list of witnesses and therefore, it was observed that the court could not give





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top