Allahabad High Court
RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PADAM NARAIN MISHRA
Holding
The trial court's order rejecting the request for another expert opinion is lawful and not liable to be quashed.
Summary
The applicant filed an FIR alleging his sister's death under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the accused claimed suicide based on a photocopied suicide note. During bail proceedings the accused obtained a private handwriting expert opinion on the photocopy. The applicant sought a fresh expert opinion from the trial court, which was rejected on the ground that the note was only secondary evidence and any opinion on it would lack evidentiary value. The applicant challenged this order through a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, alleging manifest illegality and miscarriage of justice. The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion, as the order was based on sound reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and therefore dismissed the application. The court further directed that the applicant may raise objections to the note’s admissibility during the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit a fresh expert opinion on a photocopied suicide note.
- Whether the order of the trial court can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on grounds of manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A
Subjects
- Section 482
- expert opinion
- secondary evidence
- admissibility
- dowry death
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- miscarriage of justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26835 of 2021
Rajesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitinjay Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ashok Kumar Singh, Devendra
Kumar Upadhyay, G.A., Pratibha
Singh
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for quashing the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Special
Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah in Session Trial No. 469 of 2013 on
application moved by the applicant dated 24.02.2020 whereby the
application seeking permission to obtain another expert opinion with
regard to the alleged suicide note has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the aplicant submitted that the applicant had
lodged an F.I.R. against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 under Sections
498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
alleging death of his sister under suspicious circumstances. After
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under the aforesaid
sections. It is further submitted that during the course of bail
proceedings, the accused persons set up a defence of suicide and
relied upon a photocopy of an alleged suicide note. It is further
submitted that the Investigating Officer has stated that only a
photocopy of the said note was received during investigation and the
accused persons have also obtained a private handwriting expert
opinion based on the said document. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that in order to rebut the said defence and the
expert opinion obtained by the accused, the applicant moved an
application before the trial court seeking permission to obtain another
A482 No. 26835 of 2021
2
expert opinion, which has been rejected by the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order does
not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is submitted that the
document in question is admitted by the applicant to be photocopy,
i.e., secondary evidence, and the trial court has rightly declined the
prayer for obtaining expert opinion on such document.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
trial court has rejected the application of the applicant primarily on the
ground that the alleged suicide note is not the original document but
only a photocopy and, therefore, any expert opinion based on such
secondary evidence would not be of evidentiary value. The
admissibility and reliability of expert opinion is intrinsically connected
with the authenticity of the document examined. When the document
itself is not the original, the probative value of any opinion rendered
thereon becomes doubtful. The trial court has, therefore, exercised its
discretion in declining the request of the applicant.
8. It is also to be noted that the scope of interference under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is limited. Unless the impugned order suffers from
manifest illegality, perversity or results in miscarriage of justice, this
Court would not ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders passed
by the trial court. In the present case, the order passed by the trial
court is based on sound reasoning and does not suffer from any
illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers.
9. The present application is hereby dismissed.
10. The applicant shall, however, be at liberty to raise all permissible
objections regarding admissibility and evidentiary value of the alleged
suicide note and the expert opinion during the course of trial at
appropriate stage.
February 18, 2026
Israr
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…