Delhi High Court Harish vs State on 15 May, 2014Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17th April, 2014
% Date of Decision: 15th May, 2014
+ CRL. M.C. No. 2372/2013
HARISH ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Anish Dhingra, Adv.
STATE ….. Respondent Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the
Insp. Dharmender Kumar, PS
Mr.Sunil Kapoor, Adv. for the
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
1. The petitioner Harish has filed the present petition under 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.
2. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 2372/2013 Page 1 of 4 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 Section 302/34 IPC against accused Harish, Banarasi Das and Urmila. Accordingly charges were framed on 10.01.2007.
5. 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.
6. An application dated 12.05.2009 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 07.11.2009.
7. Thereafter, another application dated 19.03.2013 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to take photograph of
Crl.M.C. No. 2372/2013 Page 2 of 4 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 16.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the trial court dismissed the said application.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition.
9. 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.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
11. Admittedly, the suicide note was produced after 92 days of the incident and the alleged admitted handwriting of the deceased on the LIC policy was put forth after five years of the incident. Further, there is no explanation offered by the petitioner as to how this document could not be found for five long years, even though, the sister-in-law of the deceased from whose possession this document was found was
Crl.M.C. No. 2372/2013 Page 3 of 4 living in the same house. Besides, the LIC policy, signature on statement of the deceased in the Court in case FIR No.99/1996 was also produced. The signature on LIC policy was sent to FSL for comparison of handwriting by the trial Court and it was opined by the FSL that as alleged suicide note was in Hindi and the signature on the LIC policy are in English, these two handwritings cannot be compared. Further, the application for comparing signature on evidence of the deceased in FIR No.99/1996 was also made but the same was rightly dismissed by learned trial court on the ground that no purpose will be served by sending the same to the FSL as the signature on the evidence are again in English.
13. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits, in my considered opinion, it will not be fruitful exercise to permit the petitioner to obtain photograph of the documents for comparison to some private agency.
14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
The trial Court record be sent back forthwith.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
MAY 15th , 2014
Crl.M.C. No. 2372/2013 Page 4 of 4