During the' trial of this petition, a doctor entered the witness-box, 'and while deposing in Court, he stated that the injury received by one of the witnesses could be grievous. Precisely, the doctor stated that the injury on the person of Mst. Surrrya Azeem may be grievous.
2. The petitioner/complainant moved an application before the learned trial Magistrate praying that the doctor be re-examined, so that, a definite opinion is elicited from him. Said application was rejected, vide judgment dated 26th of October, 1988.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed. This Court had directed the learned Assistant Advocate-General to appear in this Court. Accordingly, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, AA: G. Has appeared today. The learned AA.-G. Submits that the accused ought to have been unpleaded as party, because in case this revision petition is accepted, his case will be prejudiced. I am afraid that this contention has no force, because in any event if this revision petition is allowed, and the doctor is examined again, the accused will be entitled to cross--examine him.
4. Adverting to the merits of the case, it is obvious that no definite opinion exists on the record to find out the nature of the injury. It is well-known that if there are two views, then the one in the favour of the accused is to be adopted. In the circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to A have elicited the correct opinion. In this view of the matter, I find force in this revision petition, and thus, I set aside the judgment of the trial Court with the direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall summon the doctor again with a view to have positive opinion about the nature of the injury. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.
SA./N-207/LAccepted.