IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-21845 of 2008
Date of Decision: December 18, 2008
Babu Lal
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Assistant
Advocate General, Haryana, assisted
by Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for
the complainant.
. . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Challenge in this petition is to Order
dated 11.8.2008 whereby after consideration of facts
and circumstances of the case, it has been observed
by the Court below that Dinesh (a witness) cannot
speak and is unable to write with his left hand,
therefore, it would be in the interest of justice
that Dinesh be examined with aid and assistance of
an expert.
Reply has been filed. In Para 3 of the
reply, the following has been stated:-
“3. That para no.-3 of the petition is correct to the
extent that reply was filed by the accused persons to the
above said application, but it is wrong to allege by them
Crl. Misc. No. M-21845 of 2008 [2]that they had been implicated falsely. The
Neurosurgery Department, Pt. B.D. Sharma,
P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak vide its report in the letter No.
NS/08/244 dated 30.06.08 and its latest report dated
8.11.2008 has specifically opined that the Brock’s
Aphasia (not able to speak) is due to the head injury of
victim Dinesh. It is wrong to allege by the petitioner
that Dinesh had not received the said injury in the
present occurrence, although his statement was
recorded by the investigating officer during the course
of investigation, but as submitted above, the victim has
developed the disability for the present time and thus it
does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to allege that
the prosecution has made the application on false
excuses to avoid searchy cross examination.”
Contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that statement of Dinesh taken under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. is sufficient to indicate that
Dinesh can communicate without aid of an expert,
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he is
now required to be examined on oath in Court and
would also be required to be cross examined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to document placed on record as Annexure
P-1 to say that Dinesh can write.
On perusal of the writing, it transpires
that it is a writing in broken letters and does not
indicate the comfort of the witness in
communicating. I find no legal infirmity in the
order as the order is based on relevant material.
No ground for interference is made out.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
December 18, 2008 JUDGE
avin