A sessions court here has set aside an order discharging a man accused of forging the thumb impression of his younger brother on their mother's will.
The court also rejected the finger print report of Delhi Police in the matter, saying it was not properly explained.
Additional Sessions Judge Vrinda Kumari sent the matter back to a magisterial court, while asking it to decide afresh the issue of framing of charge against the accused and his son.
"The trial court has referred to the 2013 report of the Finger Print Bureau of Delhi Police in which it has been opined that the questioned thumb impression on the disputed will was found to be that of the complainant himself.
"I have perused the report. In this report, the result of the examination has been mentioned. However, there is no explanation as to on what basis and in what manner the finger print analyst/expert reached this conclusion," the judge said.
The trial court had in its June 28, 2016 order, relied on the finger print report and rejected the complainant's claim that the will was forged, adding that the allegations of cheating and forgery appeared to be baseless.
The sessions court, however, said that the report was not explained and the complainant was not given an opportunity to establish his case.
"The report is not supported by any explanation, reasons and manner of analysis. In such circumstances, the court is convinced that by not affording an opportunity to complainant to explain and establish his case for purpose of framing charge, a grave prejudice has been caused to him," it said.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a south Delhi resident, had moved the court alleging that his elder brother along with his son had forged a 2004 will of their mother.
He had alleged that his signatures as well as those of their mother were taken on a blank paper by his brother in order to get the property mutated.
He alleged that this blank paper was misused and converted into a forged will, adding that the purported thumb impression of the complainant on the said will was, in fact, the thumb impression of a witness, also accused in the case.
The respondents opposed the revision petition contending that the discharge has the effect of an acquittal and can only be challenged in the high court.
This contention was, however, rejected by the court which said the plea was maintainable.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
