Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53466 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10941 of 2025 Applicant :- Satypal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Shivangi Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Ms Shivangi Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been filed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (Crime Against Women), Court No.1, Rampur in S.T. No.122 of 2020, case crime no.63 of 2020, Police Station- Milak, u/s 498A, 304B, 324 & 3/4 D.P. Act, State of U.P. Vs. Amit and others, which has been passed rejecting the application on 57kha in which application is submission to verify the voice call recording and electronic evidence be sent for forensic laboratory which has been occurred last seen of incident and further prayed be directed to learned trial court to sent laboratory science for examination of electronic evidence." 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and another co-accused persons u/s 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet. After taking cognizance, matter was committed to sessions court. During trial, PW-3, Naresh was examined on 06.12.2023 and he was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the applicants. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 07.10.2024 and, thereafter, on framing of the alternative charge of Section 302 Cr.P.C., PW-3 Naresh, was re-examined on 04.02.2025, who was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the applicant. Thereafter, an application was moved by the present applicant to send the voice sample of Naresh, PW-3, as well as other witnesses for examination. That application was rejected by the court below vide impugned order dated 09.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Naresh is a relevant witness and he has refused to recognize his voice during playing of voice recording recorded in the mobile of accused Amit, who was the husband of deceased. Therefore, his sample of the voice should be sent for forensic examination which could help in the just decision of the case. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that as per the application of the applicant, Amit, himself informed the father of the deceased and merely because during that conversation, voice of Naresh was also heard which is not relevance for this purpose. The entire purpose of application, which was rejected by the court below is delaying the trial. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. After hearing the submission of parties and on perusal of record, it appears that trial of this case is pending since 2020 and all the prosecution witnesses were examined and, thereafter, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 07.10.2024. Thereafter, the defence witnesses were also examined. The cross-examination of PW-3, Naresh was already completed on 06.12.2023 but on framing alternative charge u/s 302 Cr.P.C., he was re-re- examined on 04.02.2025 and he was also again cross- examined by the applicants. Therefore, almost at the conclusion of evidence, the application in question was filed for sending the voice recording of PW-3, Naresh for examination in lab as Naresh refused to recognize his voice. 7. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the conversation as mentioned in the voice recording does not show how the aforesaid conversation is relevant for the just decision of this case. As the deceased died within 7 years of marriage and there are allegations that soon before her death, cruelty was committed with her for demand of dowry by the accused persons and as per the applicant himself, the accused Amit informed the father of deceased as well as the present applicant about the death of deceased. In such circumstances, sending the voice recording of the PW-3 for forensic examination is not at all relevant. 8. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad