1 2025:CGHC:12375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 895 of 2025 Lalita Nishad W/o Radhelal Nishad Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Chinauri, Block Charama, Distt. - Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Charama, Uttar Bastar, Kanker ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 12/03/2025 1) By way of this instant criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is seeking the direction to set aside the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the District and Sessions judge, Uttar Bastar Kanker in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2022 rejecting the plea for further investigation and to instruct the investigating authorities to send a video containing the petitioner’s daughter’s dying declaration to a FSL with the appropriate technology for examination. Moreover by way of this petition the petitioner is seeking stay in the trial proceedings in Sessions Case no. 13 of 2022 till the final results of the Forensic Examination. 2) As per the allegations, petitioner’s daughter Saraswati(victim) got married to one Krishna Sinha in the year 2016 and thereafter was living 2 with him in his matrimonial home, Chinauri. It has been alleged that on 25.12.2021 at around 8pm the victim’s husband has set her on fire in the kitcher. Based upon which the FIR was lodged bearing registration no. 0020 of 2022 at Police Station Charama against the husband of the victim for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners most humbly submitted that the video clip dated 01.01.2022 is the most reliable statement/dying declaration of the victim. The statement of the victim recorded by the ppolice on 26.12.2021 and 27.12.2021 were recorded when the victim’’s health was critical suggesting manipulation by the police in recording the statement. Moreover, the police officer taking the statement was the only person present in the room at the time of taking such statement. Furthermore, the victim had also informed the Petitioner’s daughter-in-law (PW-02) before her death that the police had made her place her thumb imprint on a few documents when she was in hospital on 26.12.2021 and 27.12.2021. Based upon the above mentioned contentions, she prays for setting aside the order dated 14.01.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 13of 2022 and further prays to direct the investigating authority to sent the video clip dated 01.01.2022 for forensic inspection at any Central Forensic Laboratory that possesses the necessary equipment to examine the video which will not cause any prejudice since it doing so will only clarify the technical status of a material that is already on record in the interest of justice. 4) Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by categorically , vehemently and specifically denying all the adverse allegations made by the petitioners anywhere in the instant petition and filed its reply stating that the article seized in the said case that is the Mobile Phone and Pen Drive were sent to Cyber Forensic Lab, PHQ, Atal nagar, Raipur for investigation and the same was done on 08.06.2023 and more than a year has passed since the said report was presented and moreover, the case is also based on other circumstantial evidences which needs to be considered. Hence the order 3 passed by the learned judicial authority is in its judicial capacity and the same is well reasoned based on the findings and reasonings mentioned therein, after considering all the aspects of the matter and the material available on record, there seems to be no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondent, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Perusal of the available record, it is evident that the victim’s statement was recorded while she was admitted at Kalra Burn and Plastic Surgery Centre, Raipur for treatment and according to both the statements the victim caught on fire when a flame fell on her from the Chimney. On 01.01.2022 the petitioner’s daughter in law visited the victim at the hospital and enquired about the incident where the victim informed her that the victim’s husband Krishna Sinha ignited kerosene oil on the victim’s body with the intention to kill her. The victim also informed her that the police has made her place her thumb imprint on a few documents without informing her about the contents of such documents when she was in hospital. However, on 05.01.2022 victim died during her treatment after sustaining severe burn injuries. Thereafter on 29.01.2022 the petitioner’s daughter-in-law provided her mobile and pen drive which contained the video clip of victim’s statement to the Police. Then the same was forwarded to the Assistant Inspector General, Technical Services, Raipur vide Annexure P/04. On 03.05.2022 the police submitted the charge sheet in the matter before the JMFC, and the case was registered as Sessions Case and the proceedings are currently going on before the concerned district and Sessions Judge. That on 08.06.2023 the Chhattisgarh Cyber Crime Lab, Raipur submitted the inspection report in relation to the seized mobile device and pen drive containing the video clip dated 01.01.2022 to SP, Kanker. On the same day Supervisor, Cyber Crime Forensic Lab, Raipur submitted a Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act certificate with respect to the said video clip. Petitioner’s daughter in law was examined in the Trial Court where she 4 admitted on oath to the recording of such video of the victim on her mobile device and storing it in a pen drive. Annexure P/5 is the final report submitted in which it shows that the said video clip was not properly verified due to lack of the necessary apparatus needed to check the veracity of the same clip. 7) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially to the fact that the video clip which was recorded by the daughter in law of the petitioner has not been duly examined due to lack of the appropriate apparatus and therefore the veracity of the video clip is not verified and in absence of complete and fair verification of the video clip, it would be injustice on the part of the victim as well as her family members to come to some conclusion. Hence this court is of the considered view that the video clip of the said pen drive which has been produced and recorded by the daughter-in-law of the present petitioner need to be examined again in the interest of justice, therefore, the this court allows the petitioner to seek further investigation to get the video clip inspected and check the authenticity of the said video clip within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory having the necessary apparatus to check the veracity/correctness of the video clip. 8) With the aforesaid direction, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza