P V MOHANA RAO NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is an accused in S.C. No. 285 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Vellore, facing trial for the offences under Sections 376, 306, 506 (ii) I.P.C. read with Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amended) Act, 39 of 2002. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 233 (3) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Exhibits P-1 and P-3 to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison with admitted signatures of the deceased in this case and obtain the opinion and report. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P-1- the alleged suicide note and Exhibit P-3-admitted inland letter said to have been written by the deceased were compared by P. W. 17-hand writing expert and he had given opinion stating that both are written by same person. P.W.I7, who is examined as a witness by the prosecution has stated in his evidence that he did not know the language of Telugu. But the documents Exhibits P-l and P-3 were written in Telugu. Only in the said circumstance, for a proper opinion, the petitioner had filed the application to compare Exhibits P-l and P-3 by an hand writing expert, who knows Telugu.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that P.W.17-hand- writing expert has already compared the documents Exhibits P-1 and P-3 and he had given a definite opinion and P.W.17 was also subjected to cross-examination by the defence. During the cross examination, the learned Government advocate (Criminal Side) also stated that the reasons for the opinion also had been given by the expert and the reasoning sheet has also been marked as Exhibit P-26 series.