MALINI JAIN Vs. PANKAJ BHUTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 30/8/2024 passed in ST No. 35/2022 by the learned 1st ASJ, Chhindwara, whereby the application under Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) An FIR was lodged on 13/10/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC against respondent No. 1, alleging that he forged certain medical treatment documents of the husband of the present petitioner, who subsequently died during treatment.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has mechanically dismissed the application without appreciating that the voice recording of the deceased is relevant to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that, without considering the material fact that the pen drive is directly related to the offence and the FIR, the trial court rejected the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused persons failed to provide proper medical treatment to the deceased, which directly resulted in his death. This fact is mentioned in the FIR, and it is also alleged that the accused attempted to extort money from the family of the deceased and, in order to conceal his negligence in service, prepared forged documents.