Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.P. VAISH, J.
Harish - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL M.C. No. 2372 of 2013
Decided On : 15-05-2014
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Permission to obtain photographs of documents - Court dismissed application seeking permission to obtain photographs of documents filed by the petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the dismissal of the application seeking permission to obtain photographs of documents related to a case involving charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 and Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the delay in producing the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased, as well as the language differences between the documents. It concluded that permitting the petitioner to obtain photographs of the documents for comparison to a private agency would not be a fruitful exercise.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility and comparison of documents related to the case, including a suicide note and admitted handwriting of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the delay in producing the documents, the language differences, and the lack of explanation for the delay undermined the petitioner's request to obtain photographs of the documents for comparison.
Final Decision: The petition was deemed devoid of any merits and was dismissed by the court.
V.P. VAISH, J.
1. The petitioner Harish has filed the present petition tinder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 16.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the application seeking permission to obtain photographs of the documents filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Shorn off unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that on 15.6.2005, suicidal information of the deceased at House No. 3758, Gali No. 11, Shanti Mohalla, was received at PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ASI Narender Tyagi, Crime team and SDM was informed about the same and inquest proceedings were conducted. On the basis of the statement of the father of the deceased, Mr. Amar Nath, complaint was lodged on the basis of which FIR No. 251/2005 under Sections 302/304B/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered at PS Krishna Nagar. The complainant had stated that the marriage of Jyoti (deceased) and the petitioner, Harish was solemnized on 15.5.2002, the deceased was harassed and ill-treated on demand of dowry by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, two sister-in-laws namely Rajni and Daizy and her husband, Harish. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Vide order dated 16.12.2006, learned trial Court passed an order for framing of charges under Sections 498A/304B/34, IPC against all the accused persons and an alternate charge for the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC against accused Harish, Banarasi Das and Urmila. Accordingly charges were framed on 10.1.2007.
2. The application for bail was filed by the accused and at that time an alleged suicide note written by the deceased Jyoti was produced after 92 days of the death of the deceased Jyoti.
3. An application dated 12.5.2009 on behalf of the petitioner for sending the suicide note to handwriting expert was filed. In the said application, the petitioner had stated that the specimen signature of the deceased on the proposed LIC policy had already been placed on file and the accused had found a handwritten note of the deceased in which she has written 'Jai Mata di' several times as she was follower of 'Mata'. The petitioner prayed that the said letter, a suicide note and admitted signature be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison and expert opinion. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 7.11.2009.
4. Thereafter, another application dated 19.3.2013 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to take photograph of suicide note and admitted handwriting of the deceased which were produced by Ms. Suman along with application for handwriting expert opinion. Vide impugned order dated 16.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the trial Court dismissed the said application.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the suicide note was filed at the time of moving an application for bail. The suicide note along with signature of the deceased on LIC policy was sent to FSL and FSL authorities returned the same stating that the admitted signature was insufficient for comparison. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the FSL authorities was not able to express its opinion in totality due to inadequate documents of the handwriting of the deceased. The Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is a document which is in the handwriting of the deceased and the same is to be filed by Ms. Suman. The suicide note and the writing of the deceased can be compared and the expert engaged by the petitioner be permitted to obtain the photograph of the documents and submitted a report.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
8. Admittedly, the suicide note was produced after 92 days of the incident and the alleg
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
