SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hameer Singh vs State on 26 November, 2019

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)


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


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary




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


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


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.



(Downloaded on 26/11/2019 at 08:45:48 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation