Rajesh Jindal v. Rajender
! "
!"#"$%
#$
%&'$
& ' ( (" ) ! # *
+
, - %#!
% #
& %-.!
-
/'0! 1"
)+ !
-
2
&
% 33- 33"
) -,,'( 4 ! # ,- 2 !3 ' &/ 5,2' 617 )+& " 7 " 3 - -0 3 0" * +& &
- &
!
.! ) - ,
8 /'0! 1 8& &
9 $! " - -
) + :"
3 & 37 ! $33
8 7 3 %5!! 6# "
3! " )- $ -
& 3"
/!"
!
( & " 3$
)
!
%-" 3 $ "!
.!3"
7 "3 - ( 3 3$3"!-
; !
" ! "!
.! 7 +
-
+ $ ) 2 & "
7 )!
"
3)
%-.! 3 "
" 3<!
!)3
-
! "!
.!) - )!
3 - $ )
)+3(
!
- $ 3-
3 + - !
"!
-
! .! I $ 3 !
$ -
0" )! "
& !
"" "
" 7 !
!- < $- ! " " !- 7
&
"
"
" 0 -
" 7 2!
'$ " '
+& +7
)!"
2 "
3)
%-.! 3 "
" 3 3! 3
+3"
" 3"
/!"
1 $ & 3
-
! "!
.! 3 - 8 2 0 & !
-
enial of an opportunity to have the handwriting compared would prejudice the
petitioner and hamper his ability to present best available evidence and defend himself, which is in direct violation of the right to free and fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice. While it is true that the results of the proposed analysis in itself might have some probative value but it is totality of the circumstances that would cause the learned trial Court to decide if the same can shake the credibility of the prosecution case. As such, " !7
) !
.!/!"
1
+ 3"
7
- )"
!-3 )+
) !
7 &" %- !
#- *&
7-7
!!"#$# !
!
" # $ !! $$% $& $$$ ##' # # &$$$ '
($)!# & $## $& !! $$%$# $
% & $' $$!
&)$##$ &$$!
!$$$$#* & ' $ # ' % ' #& &$ &% + ) $ +! $$$$'%$$$ $ %$ $ '$&%'$#* '' $! '
('$!
$+ $ ) $ +! $$!
$$$ $$$ $$ $%$'$&%'$#* $$###$ & $$&'#$$#*# $% &'!&% $ $ $)
&' $$$$'#'$##$$$ &%$ ) $+ $'$#**$&%) $ +! $ )/3" 1 7.
' - +&$7 ! )$& "
7 3"!-
/'0! 1 )+ &!) "
+3 &
9&"
+ $ ! 3=!
& !
-
2
&
%& - $"" ! - -0 3 0"
- 3
!
/1& +&
" '
(
# > " %-9 ?9, > "
?9,