Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Natasha Singh – Petitioner
Versus
CBI (State) – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4406 of 2013 & CRL.M.A.No.15774 of 2013
Decided On : 25-08-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Saxena, Mr. Kawal & Mr. Rohit, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Garima Singh Yadav, Advocate
The role of an expert witness is advisory, and the Court must form its own judgment based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Challenge to Order - Evidence of Handwriting Expert - Section 45 of the Evidence Act - [S.P. GARG, J.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Trial Court that disallowed the expert witness (V.C.Mishra) to demonstrate the incorrectness of the report given by another expert witness (PW-32 S.L.Mukhi) regarding questioned signatures. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's restriction on the expert witness's examination was not permissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by PW-32.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court's decision to disallow the expert witness from commenting on the report of another expert witness was justified. It emphasized that the expert witness's role is to present materials and reasons for their conclusion, leaving the judgment to the Court. The Court also noted that the petitioner's conviction was not solely based on the testimony of PW-32, as both reports from prosecution and defense experts were considered.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's decision to restrict the expert witness's examination was lawful and whether the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by PW-32.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Trial Court's decision was justified as the expert witness's role is advisory, and the Court must form its own judgment. It also emphasized that the petitioner's conviction was not solely based on the testimony of PW-32.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court record was ordered to be sent back forthwith.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 05.10.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge in CC No. 42/2001 whereby DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) examined in defence by the petitioner was not permitted to give evidence to render his opinion upon the report given by PW-32 (S.L.Mukhi).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with others was facing trial before Special Judge, CBI. On 21.01.2013, the prosecution closed its evidence after examining 52 witnesses; it included PW-32 (S.L.Mukhi), retired Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi, a handwriting expert who prove his report (Ex.PW-32/L) and opined that the questioned signature at point Q-7 in Ex.PW-32/L was that of the petitioner. After recording 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner examined DW-2 (Sudhir Kumar) in her defence and the case was listed for final arguments for 05.03.2013. Subsequently, on 05.03.2013, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 16.03.2013. Crl.M.C. 1324/2013 to impugn the said order resulted in its dismissal by this Court. In Crl.A.709/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3271/2013, the petitioner was permitted to examine defence witnesses by an order dated 08.05.2013. The petitioner thereafter examined DW-4 (Bacha Babu Sharma) and DW-5 (Shanti Swaroop Batra). On 30.08.2013, handwriting expert V.C.Mishra filed expert opinion vide his report dated 12.08.2013 along with its enclosures in the Court and was partly examined that day and on 18.09.2013. Further examination-in-chief was deferred to move an application relating to his examination; it was filed on 24.09.2013. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed.
3. Perusal of the file reveals that DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) when examined on 30.08.2013 proved his report (Ex.DW-6/A) and was of the view that Q-7 in Ex.PW-32/L was not written by the writer of S-34 to S-64 (Ex.PW-32/H-1 to Ex.PW-32/H-27 and Ex.PW-50/A-1 to Ex.PW-50/A-4). On 18.09.2013, he proved various documents. Further examination was deferred as the petitioner desired to move an application relating to the examination of the witness. DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) again appeared on 21.10.2013 and was partly examined. Further examination was deferred to enable the petitioner to challenge order dated 05.10.2013. On 31.10.2014, it was submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that examination-in-chief of DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) would be deemed to have been closed subject to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on the issue in question. The witness was cross-examined at length that day and on 31.03.2015.
4. Instant writ petition was filed against the order dated 05.10.2013 before this Court which came for hearing on 22.10.2013. It was adjourned to 28.10.2013, 09.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. Crl.M.A. 10945/2014 was filed for return of the Trial Court record. The Trial Court record was sent back on 30.09.2014 to be requisitioned two days before the next date of hearing i.e. 05.11.2014. On 23.11.2015, it was informed that the case was fixed for judgment on 26.11.2015 before the Trial Court. This Court ordered to immediately send back the Trial Court record. However, it was made clear that ‘the judgment, if delivered, shall be the subject matter of the present case’. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court vide a judgment dated 07.12.2015 convicted Rita Singh, Natasha Singh (the present petitioner) and Y.V.Luthra for commission of various offences. The petitioner and other convicts have challenged the said final judgment in appeals which are pending before this Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that since the judgment was subject matter of the present petition, petitioner’s conviction does not render the present petition infructuous. The Trial Court did not permit the expert witness (V.C.Mishra) to demonstrate how the report given by PW-32 (S.L.Mukh
