JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This appli cation 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.

(2.) 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 FIR 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 under section 302/506 IPC, 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 under section 313 Cr. P. C. thereafter, the applicants who are in jail were brought before the Trial Court, they moved an ap plication through their Counsel with a prayer that the FIR (Exhibit 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 re quires 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 under section 482 Cr. P. C.

(3.) 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 rec ord it appears that in the present case, the FIR 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 appli cation filed by the applicants for sending the FIR, 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 appli cation 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 sugges tion were put up before him in respect of the FIR but the same were denied by him, it has been stated that the FIR has been writ ten by him, no portion of the FIR has been written by some other person. The learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclu sion that for the purpose of delay the pro ceedings of the trial, the application was moved by the applicants with a prayer that the FIR may be sent 'to Hand Writing Ex pert to get the opinion whether it has been scribed by one person or more than one, which has been rightly rejected because sending the FIR to Hand Writing Expert for obtaining the information, was not neces sary 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 con clusive 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 dis missed. Application Dismissed. .