JUDGMENT D.P. Uniyal, J. - This revision is from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Basti directing the trial Magistrate to record additional evidence of Dr. G.D. Tandon, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Basti in order to fix the identity of Sidh Ram injured (complainant) . 2. I have persued the record of this case and it seems to me that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in allowing the applications of the B.G.C. to produce additional evidence at this stage. The injury report of Sidh Ram Ext. Ka. 6 recorded by Dr. G. D. Tandon gives his parentage as Sidh Ram son of Ram Datt Pandey. But Dr. G.D. Tandon who was examined in court on behalf of the prosecution had stated that the complainant was Sidh Ram son of Ram Dularey and that he had examined him on March 6, 1963 in the Sadar Hospital, Basti. He did not know Sidh Ram son of Ram Dularey personally but stated that he could recognise him if produced before him. The important point that arises in the case is whether the person examined by Dr. Tandon was Sidh Ram son of Ram Harakh Pandey. In the injury report signed by the doctor the parentage of Sidh Ram was described as Ram Dutt while in his statement the doctor gave the parentage of Sidh Ram as Ram Dularey. It is quite conceivable that the person who appeared before Dr. Tandon for medical examination was not really Sidh Ram son of Ram Harakh Pandey for there could have been no occasion for the doctor to make a mistake about the parentage of the complainant Sidh Ram. It is surprising that not only there should have been a mistake about the parentage of Sidh Ram in the injury report but this mistake should have persisted at the time the statement of the doctor was taken in court. This circumstance creates great suspicion about the identity of the person whose injuries were examined by Dr. Tandon on March 6, 1963. It would, therefore, be a sheer waste of time to recall Dr. Tandon for further evidence to prove the injury of Sidh Ram. 3. The Sessions Judge shall re-hear the appeal on the footing that the prosecution had failed to prove the injury received by the complainant Sidh Ram. 4. Tandon on March 6, 1963. It would, therefore, be a sheer waste of time to recall Dr. Tandon for further evidence to prove the injury of Sidh Ram. 3. The Sessions Judge shall re-hear the appeal on the footing that the prosecution had failed to prove the injury received by the complainant Sidh Ram. 4. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and direct him to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of the evidence already on the record.