DILSHAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 06.04.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal revision no. 40 of 2012, whereby learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the application moved by the prosecution directing the learned Magistrate to issue direction to revisionist to appear on the date fixed by Magistrate for giving sample of his hairs to the police for comparison with the hairs, so recovered from the palm of deceased Simpy.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that an FIR No. 235 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was got registered with police station Bazpur for murder of Simpy; some human hairs were recovered from the palm of deceased Simpy; an application was moved by the Investigating Officer on 08.12.2011 before Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, seeking permission to take sample hairs of the accused revisionist, so that the same may be compared with hairs, so recovered from the palm of deceased Simpy; learned Magistrate, vide order dated 08.12.2011, permitted to take sample hairs of accused revisionist by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kashipur on 12.12.2011; Investigating Officer failed to collect the sample hairs of accused revisionist within stipulated time; meanwhile, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; However, realizing the mistake, another application was moved by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to take sample hairs of accused revisionist for examination / comparison with hairs, so recovered from the palm of the deceased.

(3.) Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 19.12.2011, was pleased to reject the application having observed that earlier too, permission was granted, however, police failed to make compliance of the order, therefore, after filing of chargesheet, such permission seems to be unjustified. Feeling aggrieved, State preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 06.04.2013. Feeling aggrieved, accused revisionist has preferred this revision.