Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Inayat Ismail Vohra & on 14 October, 2013
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)V/SINAYAT ISMAIL VOHRA R/SCR.A/1805/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1805 of 2012 With SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1291 of 2012 ============================================= STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s) Versus INAYAT ISMAIL VOHRA & 5....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: Special Criminal Application No.1805/2012 MR HK PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE with MR ABHIRAJ TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.1 5 MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No.6 Special Criminal Application No.1291/2012 MR HRIDAY BUCH for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR HK PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.1 MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE with MR ABHIRAJ TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No.2 - 6 ========================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 14/10/2013 COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Both these petitions are directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara below Exh.65 in Sessions Case No.159/2009, hence the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Special Criminal Application No.1805/2012, has been filed by the State of Gujarat whereas Special Criminal Application No.1291/2012, has been filed by one Nazirbhai Ismailbhai Vohra, husband of the first informant-deceased Raziaben, wife of Nazirbhai Ismail Vohra. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the first informant lodged a first information report against the respondents original accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 337, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act alleging that on the date of the incident, the accused persons had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire. Subsequently, the first informant succumbed to the burn injuries and section 302 IPC also came to be added. Before the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, one of the respondents, viz., Riyazbhai filed an application under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for further investigation so as to consider his case of alibi and also to undertake narcoanalysis test of the said accused and witnesses. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved, the said accused went in revision before the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The said revision application came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for re-hearing of the applicant and deciding the same on merits. After hearing the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class partly allowed the application and directed further investigation to be made in respect of the plea of alibi raised by the said accused, however, the prayer for conducting narcoanalysis test came to be rejected. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court and came to be registered as Sessions Case No.159/2009. During the course of trial, five witnesses had been examined and the sixth witness, viz., the original complainant was in the witness box since 24th February, 2011 and his evidence had not been concluded and the cross-examination was being prolonged for more than a year. Thereafter, the accused made an application below Exh.65 on 21st February, 2012 under section 173(8) and sections 313 and 315 of the Code for the purpose of undergoing Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing test and further investigation in this regard.
3. By the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and directed the investigating authority with the help of the P.I., Waghodia Police Station to conduct Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing test of all the accused as requested by them and directed the Investigating Officer to submit his report before the court. Being aggrieved, both, the original complainant and the State have filed the present petitions challenging the said order.
4. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner husband of the deceased first informant assailed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:-
There was a delay in filing the application seeking further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code.
The application under section 313 and 315 of the Code is premature, as the trial has not reached the stage for the accused to lead evidence in his defence.
The application is barred by res judicata as previously a similar application had been filed by a co-accused which had been rejected and such order has not been challenged before the higher forum and had attained finality, and hence, a second application on the same cause of action is not maintainable.
Even otherwise, the result of such tests is not admissible in evidence.
4.1 Elaborating upon the above grounds, the learned advocate submitted that the case of the prosecution against the respondents rests on direct evidence.
The prosecution also relies upon the dying declaration of the deceased. Accordingly, the prosecution had commenced adducing its evidence and at the relevant time, five witnesses had already been examined and the sixth witness, that is, the petitioner herein was in the witness box since 24th February, 2011. The recording of his evidence was not yet concluded and at that stage, the respondents had given the above referred application for undergoing Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing test. It was submitted that such an application at the crucial stage of the trial is nothing but an attempt to derail the proceedings. Referring to the impugned order, it was pointed out that the learned Judge has not recorded any reasons justifying the purpose for undergoing the test and neither have the accused persons justified the purpose for which they desire to undergo such test. It was urged that the incident is of the year 2008 and for the first time such application has been filed in the year 2012. Under the circumstances, it would be hazardous to permit the accused to undergo such tests at this stage. It was submitted that the present case rests on direct evidence and this is not a case of circumstantial evidence as was the case in the decision of this court in Dr. Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat, 2007 (3) GLR 2088, on which reliance had been placed by the learned Judge while allowing the application filed by the respondents. It was submitted that the said case was a case of circumstantial evidence whereas the present case is one of direct evidence and as such, the application should not have been allowed. It was vehemently argued that the sole object of filing such application is to derail the trial.
4.2 Next it was submitted that the application under sections 173(8), 133 and 135 of the Code has been made at the stage of trial when the prosecution is still examining its witness. It was submitted that the right of the accused to examine himself and to produce evidence in his support flows from section 315 of the Code. However, the said stage reaches only after the accused is examined by the court under section 313 of the Code and it is at the end of the said examination that the court inquires from the accused as to whether he wants to examine himself on oath or lead any further evidence in support of his defence. However, such stage has not been reached and hence, the application itself was premature. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in exercising jurisdiction at this stage. It was contended that neither section 313 nor section 315 of the Code empowers the accused to create evidence in their support to disprove the case against them. The accused can lead whatever evidence they desire on oath. However, at this stage, it is not permissible to undergo Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing test as it would amount to creation of evidence.
4.3 The next submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that the respondent No.5-Riyazbhai had filed an application under section 173(8) of the Code for further investigation and also to consider his case of alibi as well as to undergo Narco Analysis Test to prove his innocence. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate and in revision, the learned Sessions Judge remanded the matter for rehearing of the application and to decide the same on merits. Pursuant thereto, after hearing the accused as well as the State, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the application to the extent of further investigation qua the plea of alibi, but rejected the prayer to undergo narcoanalysis test. The said order has become final and has not been challenged before the higher forum. The other accused persons did not approach the trial court with similar prayers, under the circumstances, the application was clearly barred by res judicata qua the respondent No.5 whereas the other accused persons, having failed to file such an application at the earliest available opportunity have filed such application at a crucial stage of the trial when the eye witness is in the witness box. Therefore, the application is not maintainable in the eye of law.
4.4 Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, it was pointed out that it has been held therein that the test results of such tests are inadmissible in evidence. It was, accordingly, urged that in view of the principles enunciated in the above decision, even if such tests are permitted to be carried out, the same would be an exercise in futility as the results thereof are not admissible in evidence. It was contended that even if such Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing tests are undertaken, it would be word against word and not of any value. It was emphatically argued that after such a long period, the accused should not be permitted to undergo such tests as by now, their minds would have been trained in a particular manner with a view to belie the prosecution case and the result so obtained would not be correct. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Yusufbhai alias Isubbhai Umarbhai Mallek v. State of Gujarat, 2009 Criminal Law Journal 4015, wherein a Division Bench of this court had, while considering the provisions of section 315 of the Code, held that the said provision shows that what is required for availing the benefits of the said provision is (i) that there must be a trial in the criminal court;
(ii) person applying to be examined under the provisions would be necessarily an accused; (iii) when the stage of invoking the provisions of the said Act has reached, that is, to say after the conclusion of recording of the evidence of the prosecution followed by the explanations/submissions of the accused as required under section 313 of CrPC is over; (iv) the evidence as such accused may adduce will be on oath as a witness; and lastly (v) such evidence must be in disproving of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him. Therefore, if the evidence is given by accused after the examination under section 313 of CrPC and under section 315 of CrPC, it has to be considered in the light of the aforesaid provisions of section 315 of CRPC. The pertinent aspect is that such evidence must be in disproving of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial. Therefore, the nature of evidence cannot be for strengthening the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of any of the accused, but must be in disproving of the charges made against him. Mr. Buch submitted that in the light of the above decision, evidently, the application made by the accused is premature and ought not to have been entertained by the learned Judge.
5. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the petitioner in the cognate matter, adopted the submissions made by Mr. Buch and submitted that the application made under section 173(8) of the Code for further investigation ought not to have been allowed at this stage of the trial. It was argued that the accused did not offer to undergo such tests at the earliest available opportunity, that is, immediately after their arrests or during the course of investigation or even at the stage of committal. Under the circumstances, this is not the stage where the learned Sessions Judge could have exercised his discretion or jurisdiction. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order being contrary to the provisions of the Code, deserves to be set aside and the petitions deserve to be allowed.
6. Opposing the petitions, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that three of the accused persons are languishing in jail, hence, there is no question of their trying to delay or derail the trial. It was submitted that the application was not premature as they had sought to undergo such tests while the evidence led by the prosecution was being recorded so as to see that the trial is not delayed, because such tests would also consume some time and hence, if they are carried out prior to the stage of the defence leading their evidence, the trial can be proceeded with expeditiously. It was pointed out that in any case while the present petitions are being heard, the stage of section 313 and 315 of the Code has already been reached, and hence the said contention is even otherwise not valid at this stage.
6.1 As regards the contention that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka (supra), undergoing such tests would be an exercise in futility, it was contended that the evidentiary value of such tests would be considered by the trial court at the time of trial. It was pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has followed the decision of this court in the case of Dr. Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat (supra) and hence, the impugned order is not without jurisdiction so as to warrant exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the exercise of power by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by following the decision of this court cannot be disturbed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.
Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, AIR 1984 SC 38, for the proposition that even if the order impugned is illegal, powers under Article 227 cannot be exercised. It was vehemently argued that it is not for the prosecution to say that the accused should not undergo the brain mapping test nor can the complainant have any say in that regard. It was urged that one of the accused persons who had sought further investigation on the plea of alibi, could establish such plea. Thus, if the respondents accused are permitted to undergo the above test, they would be able to use it to prove their innocence. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference.
7. Mr. Buch, learned advocate in rejoinder submitted that there was considerable delay in making the application under section 173(8) of the Code. It was submitted that further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code can be carried out if any defect is pointed out in the prosecution case and that without stating as to what is the defect in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, no further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code can be instituted. In support of such submission, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (2) GLR 1634. It was argued that by undergoing the tests, the accused want to strengthen their case that they are innocents. They at the relevant time they did not come forward to undergo such tests and at a belated stage, the present application is made after such a long period hence, such delay defeats their right to undergo such tests. It was reiterated that on an earlier occasion, one of the accused had already preferred an application seeking further investigation as well as to undergo narcoanalysis test, which had been rejected by the learned Magistrate and hence, a second application seeking the same relief is not maintainable.
8. The facts are not in dispute. During the course of trial in connection with the first information report registered vide Dabhoi Police Station I-C.R. No.180/2008, Sessions Case No.159/2009 came to be registered. During the course of trial, while the prosecution witnesses were being examined, the respondents accused filed an application under sections 173(8) and 313 read with section 315 of the Code stating that by way of scientific evidence in their defence, they wanted to undergo brain mapping and brain finger printing test. That they were not present at the house of the deceased at the time of the incident and had not poured kerosene over her and had not committed the alleged offence. That despite several requests, the Investigating Officer had not carried out proper investigation. Though this is a case of suicide, at the instigation of her husband, the deceased Raziaben has made such false accusations. The respondents are ready to undergo brain mapping and brain finger printing tests and say that whatever evidence is obtained by such tests will be used as evidence in their defence and they shall accept the same. According to the respondents, if such permission is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution and that since some time would be consumed till the stage of section 315 of the Code is reached, in the meanwhile, such tests can be carried out.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties held that the application of the accused falls within the ambit of section 315 of the Code and partly allowed the application by directing the investigating authority to conduct the brain mapping/brain finger printing tests of all the accused as requested by them, with a further direction to submit a report of such tests before the court.
10. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether brain mapping/brain finger printing tests of the accused can be carried out at the instance of such accused persons, so as to produce the same by way of evidence in their defence.
11. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it maybe germane to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Dr. Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat (supra). In the facts of the said case, the petitioner was disputing the discovery panchnama made under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the facts of the said case, the petitioner had made several applications for undergoing such tests even during the course of investigation; however, his request had not been acceded to. The court after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties held thus:
7.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the petitioner is the accused. It is also important to note that the accused is demanding Brain mapping test/Brain fingerprinting to prove his innocence. Brain fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may not be many physical evidences at the crime scene, but the brain is always there recording the sequences of the crime. The basic difference between a criminal and innocent person is that the criminal has the details of the crime stored in his brain, whereas the innocent does not. In Brain fingerprinting testing, the subject is made to sit in a quiet room with sensors on his headband that measure electrical brain responses. Three types of stimuli: targets, irrelevant, and probes, in the form of words, pictures, or sounds are presented for a fraction of a second each, under computer control. Incoming stimulus that is significant and noteworthy results in a specific, electrical brain response, known as P-300, which is one aspect of a larger brain wave response known as M.E.R.M.E.R. (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response). However, determination of innocence or guilt is a legal entity rather than a scientific determination. The investigating agencies can take the results of Brain fingerprinting as an evidence along with all other available evidence to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. According to a study the accuracy rate of this test is 99.99 per cent and in U.S.A., the F.B.I. have been making use of this technique to convict criminals.
7.1 According to the petitioner he has been falsely involved in the case and he disputes recovery of weapon at his instance. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is facing serious charge of offence of murder, which is punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner-accused himself volunteers for the Brain mapping test/Lie-detector test. For a fair trial all possible evidence is required to be brought on record to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. Denying any opportunity to bring on record certain evidence on the ground that the trial will be delayed would amount to denying substantial justice to an accused especially when he is facing a murder trial. On the contrary, if the Lie-detector test/Brain mapping test is allowed, and if it is presumed that the said test is in his favour, that will not exonerate the petitioner-accused. The evidence is required to be considered in their totality. It cannot be said that merely on lie-detector test/Brain mapping test the petitioner-accused will be acquitted even though other evidence against him are on record. Looking to the particular facts of the case, especially when the petitioner accused specifically pleaded for Brain mapping test, I am of the view that, such an opportunity cannot be denied on the ground that the trial will be delayed. It is also required to be noted that unless it is proved that the petitioner-accused is guilty, the presumption is always in his favour. Even if the Lie detector test/Brain mapping test is allowed, at the most, it may happen that the trial may be delayed by a few days. Moreover, if the test allowed, justice will be done to the petitioner and the prosecution can have no grievance about the test.
7.2 Under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, it is the fundamental right conferred on every person, including an accused to have a fair and open trial. The scope of Art. 21 has received a liberal and expansive interpretation from time to time by the Apex Court and fair trial is the essence of the fundamental right conferred to every person under the Constitution. Under the right conferred by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, if the liberty of a person is deprived otherwise according to the procedure established by law, then the Court can interfere in the matter.
7.3 On the facts of the case, it is the case of the petitioner-accused that he has been falsely involved in the matter to save a sitting Minister/her relative. According to the petitioner a false case of discovery/recovery has been made out after a lapse of almost 10 days. Prima facie, it appears that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye- witness to the incident of murder. It is also true that there is no direct evidence against the accused involving him in the murder. The petitioner had earlier requested for Lle-detection test at the stage of investigation, but the same was not carried out.
7.4 It is required to be noted that the right of the accused to give evidence to prove his innocence not only flows from the principles of natural justice, which is now held to be a part of Arts. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, but also under Sec. 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Giving of evidence cannot be restricted only to giving of oral testimony in Court. In this century, electronic usage has been accepted in judicial dispensation. I am of the view that in a matter where it is the case of the accused that he is falsely involved, he should be permitted to give evidence in any form whether it be in the form of oral deposition before the Court or in the form of scientific nature like that of Brain-mapping test. To deprive the accused of such a right would tantamount to violation of his fundamental rights.
12. The learned advocates for the petitioners have contended that there is a delay in filing the application seeking further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code. In this regard, it may be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not directed further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code. Under the circumstances, the said submission pales into insignificance. Insofar as the contention that the trial has not reached the stage of section 313 and 315 of the Code and as such, the application is premature, it is apparent from the contents of the application made by the respondents accused that they had made such application while the prosecution witnesses were being examined with a view to ensure that when the stage of section 315 comes, the results of such tests are available. Besides, pending the present petitions, it appears that the prosecution evidence has already been closed and the stage of section 313 and 315 of the Code has already been reached. It appears that in those proceedings the accused have filed another application under section 313 and 315 of the Code for undergoing Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing and narcoanalysis tests. Thus, the contention that the application was made at a premature stage and ought not to have been allowed also no longer survives, inasmuch as, in view of the passage of time, the stage of section 313 and 315 of the Code has already reached. Insofar as the question of applicability of the principles of res judicata on the application made by the petitioners is concerned, it is an admitted position that on an earlier occasion, one of the accused persons had made an application seeking further investigation and narcoanalysis test of witnesses as well the accused for the purpose of bringing out the truth. The said application came to be partly allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by directing further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code; however, the request for narcoanalysis test of the witnesses came to be rejected. It has also been submitted that the said order has become final as the same has not been carried any further before the higher forum and hence, qua the respondent No.5 the application is barred by res judicata. In this regard, as noted hereinabove, the learned Judge has not directed further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code, but has directed the accused persons to undergo Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing tests for the purpose of using such evidence in their defence. Thus, the earlier application filed by one of the accused who was pleading alibi and wanted to undergo narcoanalysis test and also wanted the witnesses to be subjected to such test for the purpose of proving his plea of alibi, whereas by the present application, all the accused seek to undergo brain-mapping and brain-fingerprinting tests for the purpose of using the results of such tests as evidence in their defence. Therefore, strictly speaking, the principles of res judicata will not be applicable to the application made by the respondents accused.
13. Coming to the main question involved in the present case, as noticed earlier, it is the case of the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the offence in question and that though the deceased had committed suicide, at the instigation of her husband, she had given a false declaration implicating the accused persons. It is in these circumstances that the accused want to undergo Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing tests and produce result thereof as evidence in their defence. True it is, that the Supreme Court in the case of Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka (supra) has held that even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results, can be admitted in accordance with section 27 of the Evidence Act. At the outset it may be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of the facts of the said case, wherein the prosecution wanted to compel the accused to undergo such tests. Therefore, the legality of three scientific tests, namely, narcoanalysis, polygraph test (lie detector test) and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test, was challenged inter alia on the ground that these tests violate the test subject s rights under Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution and section 161(2) of the Code. The court held that the person concerned has a right to remain silent on questions which may incriminate him. This protection is lost in case of narcoanalysis because the test subject under the influence of drug (sodium pentothal) injected into his body loses control over his verbal responses and therefore cannot decide consciously about the questions which he should not answer. Similar is the case with BEAP test wherein electrical waves emanating from test subject s brain are studied in response to probes. All these techniques involve testimonial compulsion. Thus, the test subject s right not to reveal any information which may incriminate him, is violated. This is a converse case, where the accused want to undergo such tests, whereas it is the prosecution that is resisting the same.
14. In the opinion of this court, while it is true that the Supreme Court in the context of the matter before it has held that even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of the said tests, the test results by themselves would not be admissible as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the held of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As noticed earlier, this is a converse case where the accused desire to undergo brain-mapping/brain-fingerprinting tests in support of their defence. As to what would be the evidentiary value of such test results cannot be gone into at this stage and the accused have a right to rely upon any available evidence to prove their innocence. Besides, if the respondents-accused undergo such tests, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. In the opinion of this court, the binding decision of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Dr. Purshottam Swaroopchand Soni v. State of Gujarat (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Though the facts of the said case are slightly different from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the said case was based upon circumstantial evidence whereas the present case is one of direct evidence; in the said case, the accused right from the beginning had requested that he be subjected to narcoanalysis test whereas in the present case, such request has come at a much later stage on the ground that the accused seek to rely upon such evidence in their defence under section 315 of the Code. Nevertheless, the principles laid down in the said decision would be applicable to the facts of the present case, where the accused are alleging false implication and want to rely upon such test results in their defence. As to what would the evidentiary value of such test results, is for the trial court to consider at the time of trial, however, at this stage, in the light of the above decision of this court, the accused cannot be denied the right to undergo such tests.
15. While it is true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has not given any reasons while allowing the application made by the respondents accused, that by itself would not vitiate the impugned order when, this court, on merits, has found that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while permitting the respondents - accused to undergo Brain Mapping/Brain Finger Printing tests as requested by them.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged in both the petitions. The interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.
17. At this stage, Mr. H.C. Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner (husband of the original first informant) seeks stay of this order for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum. Having regard to the facts of the case, more particularly the fact that the trial would be further delayed if such request is accepted, the request is turned down.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 19 of 19