Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He informed that it was not with him and he would not hand over the same to the Police and they should make investigation on the basis of that xerox copy.

P.W.12 Shri Ashok Jagannath Bhoi, who was the I.O.

in his cross examination, has denied that the xerox copy of the suicide note was made over to him by the accused Appellant No.1 for investigation. He also (-19-) denied that Appellant No.1 requested this witness to collect specimen of handwriting and signature of deceased Ranjana from the school and elsewhere and that the witness was insisting to hand over the original suicide note.

. The Appellants had applied for bail. The learned Counsel was specifically asked as to whether reference was made to this suicide note in the bail application and as to whether the learned Judge has dealt able with to the same. The learned Counsel point out whether such an application is not was made. However, after considering the order passed on the bail application the learned Counsel submits that the order does not refer to any suicide note in the bail application. We find from the record that for the first time the application for placing the said document on record was made on 18th October, 2005. It is impossible to accept that such a vital document in the possession of the Appellant No.1 from 2nd November, 2004 and if proved, would have supported their case of hanging would be kept away from the investigating agency. The normal conduct would have been to produce it before the Court if the investigating agency was not conducting investigation into that aspect and ask for an enquiry.

. The accused has, however, produced on record the Identity Card marked as Article D-3 on which there was signature of Ranjana, on which the signature has been identified.

14. To satisfy ourselves, so that injustice is not done, though the evidence of handwriting expert has to be considered with caution, See State of (-21-) Maharashtra vs. Sukdeo Singh & Anr. 1992 Cr.L.T.3454, we have also occularly examined the signature on the xerox copy of the purported suicide note and the signature on the identity card. On an ocular examination we are clearly of the opinion that the signature on the purported suicide note and on the admitted signature on the identity card are different. The exercise can be done by the Court considering Section 73 of the Evidence Act (See Lalit Pople vs. Canara Bank & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC

30. Accused No.1 is a Doctor. It is not his case that when he administered injection to Ranjana she was dead. Apart from that this evidence of administering injection is belied by the absence of any blood on the syringe. In this aspect of the matter not rushing Ranjana to hospital, thereafter her parents did, shows the conduct of the which accused. Further we have earlier explained that every attempt was made to show that the deceased had left behind a suicide note. We have rejected the said suicide note as even on an ocular evidence the signature on the suicide note is different from the admitted signature of deceased Ranjana. It is true that a false plae does not absolve the prosecution from discharging its burden. In the instant case the burden has been discharged and considering that the false plea will have to be held adversely against the accused.