Sukhmani Minar Lamba v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 11.12.2024 Sukhmani Minar Lamba ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.
Ms. SwaƟ Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1.
Seeking seƫng aside of impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by AddiƟonal Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court under SecƟon 442 BNSS, 2023.
2.
The present FIR is pending trial for last 12 years and one of the reason for delay is the conƟnuous excuses by one party or the other. In a sequel to the above strategy, the complainant has come up before this Court by filing the present revision peƟƟon.
3.
State has filed an applicaƟon Annexure P-4 seeking permission to take original handwriƟng of accused for comparison through SHO of Police StaƟon Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 02.02.2023 with the following prayer clause:- "1.
Kindly take again the signatures and handwriƟng for matching the signatures and handwriƟng of accused Chinar Lamba and accused Mandeep Singh and kindly give permission to take original handwriƩen applicaƟons of accused Chinar Lamba and Mandeep Singh, which given by them before the Hon'ble Court.
2.
Kindly give permission to take voice samples of accused Mandeep Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur according to mobile recording so that the voice samples may be sent again to CFSL." 4.
Vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, the trial Court dismissed applicaƟon by making following observaƟons:-
"4. The applicaƟon in hand has been filed by SHO City Sri Muktsar Sahib on 02.02.2023. The first prayer made in the applicaƟon is that the handwriƟng of accused Chinar Lamba and Mandeep Singh shall be compared. He has not menƟoned any detail of quesƟoned signatures or the standard signatures, so it is not clear before this court that what he intends to invesƟgate aŌer the examinaƟon of 53 witnesses of the prosecuƟon. It is perƟnent to menƟon here that the charge-sheet against the accused had been framed by my predecessor on 05.03.2014 and prosecuƟon has taken more than 100 opportuniƟes, but it has not been able to conclude the evidence. An applicaƟon under SecƟon 311 Crpc had also been moved by it on 02.07.
2019 for summoning 11 more witnesses which was allowed by my predecessor, and an effort has been made to prove the murder case of Mahabir Singh who is also alleged to have been murdered by accused in the present case, and the complaint of hat case had been registered by the vicƟm deceased of the present case. The invesƟgaƟon officer already obtained signatures of accused for the purpose of comparison, and the FSL has given report which is there on the file. If the report is not to the liking of SHO, then he does not have any right to move the applicaƟon in hand aŌer examining almost all the witnesses of prosecuƟon. The signatures of any person undergo change during a period of 10 years, as the age, profession and manual dexterity of a person plays an important role.
If FSL could not give any definite opinion at that Ɵme, then the degree of variaƟon will be more aŌer the passage of Ɵme. The alleged offence took place on 08.01.2012, and a period of more than 12 years has passed since then. The witnesses have been examined at length by the prosecuƟon, and instead of concluding the same, the applicaƟon in hand has been filed only to delay the conclusion of trial.
5.
Similarly the manner, tone and pitch of the voice of any person undergoes drasƟc change in a period of 12 years. The voice samples had been sent by IO to CFSL for the purpose of comparison earlier also, and report is there on the file. The transcripts of call recordings have already been exhibited by the prosecuƟon, and if any voice samples were to be compared aŌer the report of CFSI., then it should have been done before producing transcripts.
6.
The concerned SHO has not given any details of the wriƩen requests of the accused containing their signatures, nor he has aƩached the CD/ Pen drive containing alleged voice recording which is to be compared by CFSL. There is no merit in the applicaƟon, so it is hereby dismissed. One last and final
opportunity is given to prosecuƟon to conclude the evidence on 21.10.2024."
5.
Aggrieved by dismissal of complaint, the complainant has come up before this Court.
6.
I have heard counsel for the parƟes to ascertain whether the peƟƟon is worth issuing noƟce or not.
7.
The reasoning given by the trial Court as menƟoned in para no.5 (supra) appears to be scienƟfically correct. The trial Court is right by observing that degree of variaƟon would increase with the passage of Ɵme which would impact the dexterity and chance of indefinite opinion would increase. On the face of it, it appears to be a delay tacƟcs.
8.
There is no merit in the peƟƟon and the same is accordingly, dismissed. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 11.12.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.