HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4265/2018
Hameer Singh S/o Pahad Singh, Aged About 58 Years, B/c
Rajpurohit, R/o Phoolasar, Tehsil Pokaran, Distt. Jaisalmer,
Presently Gajanand Colony, P.S. Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through PP
2. Prem Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Tukliyon Ki Dhani, Ram Nagar, P.S. Gotan, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj)
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
22/11/2019
The petitioner Hameer Singh seeks to assail the order dated
15.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
Women Atrocities Act Cases, Jodhpur Metroplitan in Sessions Case
No.46/2015 whereby, the application filed by the defence seeking
comparison of handwriting on the suicide note allegedly left
behind by the deceased before ending her life was rejected.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioner and
Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel representing the
complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor Ms. Anita Gehlot
and have gone through the impugned order.
(Downloaded on 26/11/2019 at 08:45:48 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4265/2018]
The petitioner is facing trial before the trial court for the
offences under Sections 498A and Section304B IPC. He set up a pertinent
defence that before ending her life, his wife Smt. Nirma wrote a
suicide note which was seized by the police during investigation.
During the course of the investigation, the I.O. also collected the
leave application purportedly for comparison of handwritings,
submitted by the deceased at her school, the suicide note was not
sent for handwriting comparison, whereupon, the defence filed the
application which has been rejected as above. However, as the
prosecution has chosen not to rely upon the said suicide note as it
runs contrary to its case.
Shri Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioner, points
out that the complainant (PW-6) Bhagirath Singh, being the father
of the deceased, was confronted with the leave application
(Ex.D/2) and he agreed to the suggestion that the leave
application was in handwriting of the deceased and that she
appended her signatures thereon. Shri Jain submits that the leave
application is an uncontroverted document having admitted
handwriting of the deceased and therefore, ends of justice and
principles of fair trial warranted that the trial court should have
directed forwarding of the suicide note to the FSL Handwriting
Expert for comparison. In support of his contentions, Shri Jain
placed reliance on the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by this
Court in the case of Bali Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No.219/2019) and implored the Court
to accept the petitioner in the terms prayed for.
Per contra, Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel
representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions of Shri Jain and urged that there is no material on
(Downloaded on 26/11/2019 at 08:45:48 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4265/2018]
record of the case which can satisfy the Court regarding the
admitted handwriting of the deceased. The accused, if he so
desires, can get the document compared through his own sources
and thus, there is no justification to direct comparison of the
handwritings through a Government Handwriting Expert.
Learned Public Prosecutor also supported the contentions of
the complainant’s counsel.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on
record.
It cannot be denied that the suicide note, if found to have
been written by the deceased, would provide a very important
piece of evidence and could prove vital to a just decision of the
case. Unquestionably, the suicide note was collected by the I.O.
during investigation. The leave application which the defence
claims to be in the undisputed handwriting of the deceased was
also collected by the I.O. from the school where she studied. The
observation made by the trial court in the impugned order that
Hameer Singh is an illiterate man and thus, he could not have
identified the handwriting of his daughter, is per se perverse and
contrary to record because he admitted in his cross-examination
that the document (Ex.D/8) was in his daughter’s handwriting and
that he too signed the same.
In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the defence
could not be deprived of the opportunity of having the document
(suicide note) examined through a Government Handwriting
Expert because in my opinion, such an exercise is required for
reaching for a just decision of the case. In a scenario, the writing
(Downloaded on 26/11/2019 at 08:45:48 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4265/2018]
is found dissimilar, the defence would not gain any advantage
from the document.
As a consequence, the misc. petition deserves to be
accepted. The impugned order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge Women Atrocities Act Cases,
Jodhpur Metroplitan in Sessions Case No.46/2015 is hereby set
aside. The learned trial court shall forthwith instruct the
investigating officer/ prosecution agency to send the suicide note
as well as the leave application both purportedly written by the
deceased to the FSL, Rajasthan in a sealed cover for comparison
by the Government Handwriting Expert at the FSL concerned who
shall compare the handwritings on the two documents. The report
of comparison shall be prepared and forwarded by the Expert
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the
documents.
The parties would be at liberty to seek summoning of the
Handwriting Expert in evidence for proving the report, if so
desired, after receipt of the Handwriting Expert’s report.
With these observations and directions, the misc. petition is
allowed. Stay application is disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
199-Tikam/-
(Downloaded on 26/11/2019 at 08:45:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
