Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J
Shivanand Madivappa Hiremath and 7 Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution established secondary evidence for lost documents. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. compliance with evidence act confirmed. (Para 5) |
| 3. writ petition rejected. (Para 6) |
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
DATED : 26th February, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are facing prosecution in Sessions Case No.78 of 2002. The said case is under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of IPC. In the said case, the prosecution preferred an application for being allowed to lead secondary evidence in respect of three letters dated 26.12.2001, 04.1.1993 and 11.02.1993. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 30.10.2006. Being aggrieved thereby, this Petition has been preferred.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that these letters written by the deceased were seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. They were sent to the handwriting expert. Report was received from the handwriting expert. However, thereafter these three letters are found to be missing and they were not traceable, hence the prosecution preferred an application for leading secon
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
