Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
Date of decision:12.9.2008.
Rohtas @ Rohit.
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
...Respondent.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
Rohtas @ Rohit son of Shri Ishwar Singh has filed this
Revision Petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C
against the order dated 27.5.2008, Annexure P-1, passed by Mrs.
Shalini Singh Nagpal, Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karnal
vide which the request for summoning answer sheets of the
prosecutrix given in her Board Examination/School Examination
Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
-2-
for comparison with her natural handwriting in the letters written
by her, was declined.
The Revisionist/accused is facing trial for an offence
under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B, 376, 34 IPC vide FIR No.116
dated 16.5.2007, Police Station Butana. The case was fixed for
defence evidence. The accused moved an application with a
request to summon the answer sheets of the prosecutrix given in
her Board Examination/School Examination for comparison with
her natural handwriting with the letters alleged to have been
written by her. It is mentioned in the application that the petitioner
previously moved an application for taking handwriting of the
prosecutrix for its comparison with the alleged letters and the said
application was allowed. The prosecutrix had given her
handwriting and the same was compared by the Handwriting and
Finger Expert. The latter in his report has stated that the
prosecutrix had disguised her writing as she was aware that the
same was required for comparison and he also requested that her
writing can be compared from her normal writings. A prayer has
been made for summoning the school records/ examination answer
sheets in the Education Board for comparing her handwriting with
the disputed writings alleged to be that of prosecutrix.
The said application was resisted by the complainant
Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
-3-
and the State.
The learned trial Court in para No.4 of the impugned
order, has observed as under:-
“At the very outset, it strikes that there is nothing in the
application under disposal to suggest which record is
sought to be summoned for comparison by the
applicant. No particulars of the examination, the roll
number of the prosecutrix, the Board which took the
examination and the school of the prosecutrix has been
mentioned. So, even if the application is allowed, it will
serve no useful purpose without the particulars being
supplied. The Handwriting Expert has already given his
opinion that the specimen handwriting given by the
prosecutrix in the court cannot be compared with the
love letters allegedly written by her meaning thereby
that the specimen handwriting given in the court and the
handwriting in the love letters is different. Further
comparison of the handwriting of the prosecutrix, to my
mind, will not serve any purpose and will only result in
delay in disposal of the case. The accused Rohtas is in
custody since long and the case is ripe for disposal. No
ground is made out for summoning the answer sheets of
Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
-4-
the prosecutrix given in her Board Examination/School
Examination. The application is accordingly
dismissed.”
Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said order, the
present petition has been filed.
I have heard both sides and have gone through the
record of the case.
According to the accused, the prosecutrix had love
affair with him and she had written some letters which are on the
record and the accused wanted to prove the fact that these letters
have been written by the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court has
not applied its mind properly to the facts of the case. The learned
trial Court has given a finding that since the expert had given
opinion that specimen handwriting given by the prosecutrix in the
Court could not be compared with the love letters allegedly written
by her meaning thereby that the specimen handwriting given in the
Court and the handwriting in the love letters was different. The
said finding of the trial Court is unwarranted and uncalled for and
amounts to pre-judging the case. The trial Court should have
refrained from returning such a finding without concluding the
evidence by the accused. The accused should be given proper
opportunity to lead evidence to prove the fact whether the
Criminal Revision No.1081 of 2008.
-5-
handwriting in the letters is that of the prosecutrix or not.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order,
Annexure P-1, stands set aside. The finding that the specimen
handwriting given in the Court and that of love letters is different
also stands set aside. The accused shall be given opportunity to
prove the fact that the handwriting on the love letters is that of the
prosecutrix. However, the accused shall give the details of specific
record to be summoned from the Board Examination/School
Examination.
With the above observations, the present Criminal
Revision stands disposed of.
However, nothing observed above shall be construed as
an expression of opinion on any aspect of the case.
September 12,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge