Jitendra and Another vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicants Jitendra and Shobha Ram with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. No. 692 of 2006 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application dated 1.2.2008 and closed the evidence of the defence.

The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants are the accused, they are facing the trial of murder case in which the F.I.R. has been lodged by Jagdish (P.W. 1) on 11.1.2005 in respect of an incident which has occurred on 11.1.2005 at P. S. Phugana district Muzaffarnagar in Case Crime No. 3 of 2005 u/s 302/506, I.P.C., the case was investigated by the I. O. and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants, after the committal of the proceedings the statement of the witnesses have been recorded before the trial court in S. T. No. 692 of 2006. The statements of the accused persons have been recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C. thereafter, the applicants who are in jail were brought before the trial court, they moved an application through their counsel with a prayer that the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) may be sent to the Hand Writing Expert because prima facie it looks in two hand writing although P.W. 1 has denied this fact, it requires comparison with the specimen hand writing of P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh for Forensic Hand Writing Expert for the just decision of the sessions trial, the same was rejected by the learned trial court on 18.2.2008, being aggrieved from the order dated 18.2.2008, the applicants have filed this application before this Court invoking the power conferred u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and Sri Amit Daga learned Counsel for the son of the first informant (P.W. 1) because P.W. 1 has died.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. lodged by the first informant Jagdish Singh, P.W. 1, it appears that it has been scribed by P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh and it is in two different writings, although it has been proved by P.W. 1, by stating that the same was written by him and the suggestion given by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been written by two pens has also been denied. A detailed cross-examination has been done on this point by the learned Counsel for the applicant. It has also been denied by P.W. 1 that any portion of the F.I.R. was written by some other persons. The applicants moved an application before the trial court with a prayer that the F.I.R. may be sent to a Hand Writing Expert for getting the information whether it has been written by some other person or by two persons, the same has been illegally rejected by the trial court only on the ground that P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh has died and his specimen signature or the hand writing cannot be obtained for the purpose of comparison whereas the prayer was otherwise. In this case, the specimen signature or the hand writing of Jagdish Singh, P.W. 1 was not required because the prayer was to get the information whether the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was written by one person or more than one person. The learned trial court has committed manifest error in rejecting the application filed by the applicants and passed an illegal order dated 18.2.2008. In case, the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) which has been proved by Jagdish Singh, P.W. 1, is not sent to any Hand Writing Expert, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and for the just decision of the case it requires comparison of Hand Writing Expert''s opinion, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. No. 692 of 2006 may be set aside.

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the son of P.W. 1 that from a bare perusal of the record it appears that in the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh, which has been scribed by him and it has been proved by him before the trial court, P.W. 1 was properly cross-examined, thereafter he has died, the application filed by the applicants for sending the F.I.R., scribed by P.W. 1 to the Hand Writing Expert, to get opinion whether it has been scribed by one person or more than one person, has been rejected by the trial court holding that it was made for the purpose of vexation to delay the trial and to defeat the ends of justice, the application was moved after the death of P.W. 1 whose specimen hand writing cannot be obtained, from the perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 it also appears that he was cross-examined at length and so many suggestions were put up before him in respect of the F.I.R. but the same were denied by him, it has been stated the F.I.R. has been written by him, no portion of the F.I.R. has been written by some other person. The learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that for the purpose of delay the proceedings of the trial, the application was moved by the applicants with a prayer that the F.I.R. may be sent to Hand Writing Expert to get the opinion whether it has been scribed by one person or more than one, which has been rightly rejected because sending the F.I.R. to Hand Writing Expert for obtaining the information, was not necessary for the just decision of the case. The witnesses have been cross-examined at length, such point may be taken by the learned Counsel for the applicants at the time of argument, even the opinion of the expert happens not to be binding and conclusive in nature. The impugned order dated 18.2.2008 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.

Accordingly this application is dismissed.