Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26835 of 2021

¶3

Rajesh Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	Nitinjay Ashok Kumar Singh	Pandey Kumar Singh, Upadhyay, G.A.,	Devendra Pratibha

¶6

Court No. - 82

¶7

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

A482 No. 26835 of 2021

¶12

2

¶13

expert opinion, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

9. The present application is hereby dismissed.

¶18

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.

¶19

February 18, 2026 Israr

¶20

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vansh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vansh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another