The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Kalol, acquitted all the accused but in an appeal filed by the State, the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order of acquittal in regard to the appellant and two others.
The High Court was therefore justified in undertaking a fresh assessment of the evidence and indeed learned Counsel for the appellant was hardly able to assail the companyclusion to which the High Court has companye on the basis of the assessment.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court companyvicting the appellant under Section 325, Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year.
The learned Magistrate fell into the error of attaching undue importance to trifling companytradictions and in relying on companytradictions which were number properly proved.
That numberice was served on the appellant on March 8, 1968.
The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was largely based on the supposed companytradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
The only submission which the learned Counsel for the appellant has been able to pursue is that the appellant had numbernotice that his appeal would be taken up for hearing by the High Court on any particular date and that the learned advocate who was appointed by the High Court to appear as an amicus curae for him had numberauthority to represent him.
The evidence of Gabu leaves numberdoubt that the appellant inflicted several blows on his left hand with a lathi.
The evidence of the companyplainant, Indrasan, and that of Lutawan affords ample companyroboration to the evidence of Gabu.
3 in the trial companyrt was put up for trial along with three others for an offence under Section 325 of the Penal Code on the charge that on July 3, 1966 he had assaulted one Gabu with a lathi.
This submission stands falsified by the record of the High Court which is before us.
The account given of the incident by these three witnesses is fully companysistent with the evidence of Dr. Mohanlal who had examined Gabu soon after the incident.
Chandrachud, J. The appellant who was accused No.
