Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 , Section 342 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161
Statement of Prosecutrix - Comparing Signature or handwriting - Expert Evidence - Role of Court? - Held - The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive - The Court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it - However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 190
Cognizance of Offences - Appreciation of evidence at this stage - Whether Permissible? - Held - The Magistrate must, in such a case, be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., if any, do not make out any offence - At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable, or can be relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is impermissible - The Magistrate is not competent to weigh the evidence and the balance of probability in the case.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 207 , Section 208 , Section 209
Sessions Offence - Committal Proceedings - Whether Mandatory? - Held - The committal of a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, in a case instituted by the police is mandatory. The Magistrate can determine, whether the facts stated in the report make out an offence triable exclusively, by the Court of Sessions. Once he reaches the conclusion that the facts alleged in the report, make out an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 207 , Section 208 , Section 209
Sessions Offence - Order of Discharge by Magistrate - Whether Proper? - Held - When an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all - He must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else - In fact, Section 207-A in the old Cr.P.C., empowered the Magistrate to exercise such a power. However, in the Cr.P.C. 1973, there is no provision analogous to the said Section 207-A - He was bound under law, to commit the case to the Sessions Court, where such application for discharge would be considered. The order of discharge is therefore, a nullity, being without jurisdiction.
Topic(s)-Statement of Prosecutrix , Comparing Signature or Handwriting - Expert Evidence
Important Decision(s)- When an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused - He must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else.