RAVI NEAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT has filed this revision against the order dated 28. 2. 2007, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 321/05, allowing the application filed by the Investigating Officer for collecting the standard handwritings of the accused and for sending the same to handwriting expert.

(2.) APPLICANT is facing trial under Sections 302/394 and 120-B of Indian penal Code. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and on 25. 11. 2006 the case was fixed only for recording the evidence of investigating Officer. The evidence of Investigating Officer R. Sharma was partly recorded on 5/6. 12. 2006, but later on he filed an application praying for time to collect the standard handwritings of the accused and send the same to handwriting expert. During investigation the standard handwriting of the accused was collected and sent to handwriting expert. Report of the handwriting expert was filed in the Court. However, according to the said report, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the questioned documents were in the handwriting of the accused. Investigating Officer moved an application on 24. 4. 2006 before the Trial Court for again collecting the standard handwriting of accused. The said application was allowed on 2. 5. 2006 and the accused was directed to give specimen handwriting for examination by the handwriting expert for comparison with the questioned documents. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the specimen of the handwriting of the accused was taken on 8. 5. 2006 before the Court. The standard documents were sent to handwriting expert and were compared with the questioned document and the report was submitted. The report filed before the Court is dated 24. 10. 2006. According to said report, the supplied standard writing did not provide sufficient data as well as variations in the writing characteristics for thorough comparison. Hence, it was found not possible to express definite opinion on questioned documents on the basis of available data. It was mentioned in the report that for definite opinion, well proved contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings containing voluminous capital English letters of person concerned, were required. In view the said report, Investigating Officer again filed an application on 5. 12. 2006 seeking time for collection of documents. The said application was allowed by the impugned order. It was ordered that prosecution may collect/bring some other standard documents and may file a report after getting it examined by the expert.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submits that this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court. This power of investigation for collection of evidence cannot be exercised by the trial Court during pendency of the trial when almost all the evidence has been completed. In the past, prosecution had adduced two reports of handwriting expert, but they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution again moved an application for collecting evidence during pendency of the trial for filling up the lacunae found in the prosecution case.