Delhi High Court
State vs L.S.Brar on 18 February, 2015
Author: Vipin Sanghi
$~R-48.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 18.02.2015
% CRL.A. 226/2009
STATE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
versus
L.S. BRAR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. This appeal preferred by the State has been directed against the
judgment dated 06.03.2006 rendered by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, MM, New
Delhi in the case No.134/2 arising out of First Information Report (FIR)
No.190/2002 under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the I.P.C.
registered at Police Station N.F. Colony (Crime Branch) titled State Vs.
Mukesh Kumar Gaur, etc.
2. The respondent/accused Sh.L.S. Brar has been acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt while convicting the first accused Mukesh Kumar Gaur of
the offence under Sections 120-B/ 465/ 467/ 471 I.P.C. The conspiracy
against the respondent/accused was also not proved. The role attributed to
the accused was that he had attested the Will (Exhibit PW-7/A) by putting
his thumb impressions at points 'Q1' and 'Q2' and his signatures thereon.
The co-accused Mukesh Kumar Gaur did not produce the original Will. The
photocopy, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched, was
recovered from the Revenue Branch. Adverse inference was drawn against
Mukesh Kumar Gaur while convicting him, as aforesaid.
3. The photocopy of the Will (Exhibit PW-7/A) upon being sent for
forensic examination, firstly, drew the response that opinion could not be
given on the basis of a photocopy, and for the purpose of examination,
original thumb impression on the document was required, vide letter
(Exhibit PW/DA) of the Director, Finger Print Bureau (FPB).
4. The FPB was again asked to give the opinion on the basis of the
photocopy. Then the opinion (Exhibit PW-4/A) was given. PW-4 Ravinder
Nath, the expert witness justified his report. However, he stated in his cross
examination that the theory of transplant of thumb impression could not be
ruled out. So far as the signatures attributed to the respondent/accused were
concerned, the prosecution had sought to produce handwriting expert's
report, which was marked as 'A' on the statement of PW-9, the Investigating
Officer (IO) of the case. Despite the handwriting expert of the said report
being summoned, he did not appear. Consequently, he was not examined by
the prosecution and his report was not accepted by the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the short issue which
arises for consideration is whether in the face of the reasoned report of the
FPB supported by PW-4, the Court could resort to rejection of the report
(Exhibit PW-4/A) by merely observing that the questioned thumb
impressions at points 'Q1' and 'Q2' are not similar in size and some
difference in pattern is also visible. He further submits that the expert report
of the handwriting expert mark 'A' did not require formal proof under
Section 293(4) of the Cr.P.C.
6. It is not in dispute that the possibility of transplant of the thumb
impression could not be ruled out, as admitted by the witness PW-4 himself.
Therefore, in my view, there is sufficient doubt created with regard to the
thumb impression at points 'Q1' and 'Q2' attributed to the
respondent/accused.
7. It is not disputed that under Section 293 Cr.P.C., it is open to the
Court to summon the witness for his examination. Despite being
summoned, the expert witness did not appear and was not examined by the
prosecution. Therefore, in my view, the Trial Court rightly did not exhibit
the report of the handwriting expert and no question under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was put to the respondent accused with regard to the report of the
handwriting expert mark 'A'.
8. The subsequent conduct of the respondent/accused, as discussed by
the Trial Court, does not show his involvement in the conspiracy.
9. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2015
B.S. Rohella
