R.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for directing the prosecutrix to give a sample of writing under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act").
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that allegedly the prosecutrix and the petitioner had a love affair, which was not approved by the prosecutrix's father. Therefore, he lodged a report against the petitioner for offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. During the course of the trial the petitioner produced a number of love letters, which were written by the prosecutrix to the petitioner. When she was examined as a witness, she denied the fact that these letters were written by her. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 73 of the Act praying that the prosecutrix be directed to give a sample of her handwriting so that the same could be compared with the alleged letters. Since the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, the petitioner had earlier filed a Criminal Misc. Petition, registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 269/2005. Vide Order dated 7.4.2005 the said petition was allowed and the learned Trial Court was directed to take a sample of the prosecutrix's handwriting and to send the same to the F.S.L. at Jaipur. When the Trial Court took the sample of the prosecutrix's handwriting in medium speed, the petitioner requested that her handwriting be taken in slow, medium and fast speed. However, the learned Trial Court turned down such a request. According to the F.S.L. Report dated 27.5.2005, there was some similarity between the sample of the handwriting and the handwriting in the alleged love letters, But the F.S.L. had also pointed out that a better opinion would be given in case a sample of handwriting in slow speed is also sent for further comparison. When the Trial Court examined Mr. Ajay Sharma, the Handwriting Expert, he also reiterated the need for a sample of the handwriting in slow speed. Therefore, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 73 of the Act praying that the prosecutrix be directed to give a sample of handwriting in slow speed. However, vide Order dated 11.11.2005, the said application has been rejected. Hence, this petition before us.
(3.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code as well as Evidence Act provide for a fair trial to the accused. Keeping in view the need for a fair trial, Section 73 of the Act empowers the Court to direct a person to give a sample of signature or writing for the purpose of comparison. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 73 of the Act, thereby causing a grave injustice to the petitioner.;