2025:KER:17991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP(CRL.) NO. 207 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2025 IN SC NO.362 OF 2022 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT II, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: XXXXXXXXXX AGED XXXX YEARS BY ADVS. T.K.SAJEEV ABHISHEK T.M. RESPONDENT/S TATE OF KERALA : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :2: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.362/2022 of the Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur, wherein he is facing charges under Section 354(A)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 read with Section 7, Section 10 read with Section 9(n) and (p); and Section 12 read with Section 11(iii) of the POCSO Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 Order which rejected an application (Crl.M.P.No.100/2024) to send certain pages of a personal diary for the opinion of the handwriting expert. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :3: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW6 is none other than the mother of the de-facto complainant/victim and during the course of cross examination, certain pages of a personal diary maintained by PW6 were confronted to the said witness. However, PW6 would deny the handwriting contained therein. It is in such circumstances that Crl.M.P.No.100/2025 was filed to send the document for the opinion of an expert. Learned counsel would point out that the Trial Court mistook the attempt of the petitioner/accused and rejected the miscellaneous petition vide Ext.P5, holding that the attempt of the petitioner was to prove the family dispute between the petitioner and his wife/PW6. Actually, the petitioner wanted to prove the handwriting, so as to rely on the contents of the personal diary, to show that the de-facto complainant was tutored and maneuvered by PW6, her 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :4: mother, to make false allegations against the petitioner/father. This aspect was missed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel would point out that, the contents of the diary would indicate the evil design of PW6 in setting in motion the de-facto complainant/their daughter against the petitioner/father. According to the learned counsel, the document sought to be proved is quite relevant. 4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence sought to be adduced is not relevant, having regard to the substratum of the allegations in S.C.No.362/2022, which alone has to be proved by the prosecution for the purpose of conviction. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :5: instant Original Petition. Learned counsel had invited the attention of this Court to the contents of Ext.P2. Having skipped through the same, this Court finds nothing specifically which would go to show that the de-facto complainant was tutored and maneuvered by PW6/mother, so as to falsely make allegations against the petitioner/father. Ext.P2 essentially records the bickerings and the differences of opinion between PW6/mother and the petitioner/father. It is true that in page no.24 there is a heading “Neena’s Complaint” (Neena being a minor victim girl). Anyway, these are not matters to be considered during the course of prosecution evidence. 6. This Court notice that the document in question, which can be relied on by the defence only in proof of the defence case, for which they have an opportunity in terms of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :6: 7. As per Section 233, if the accused, after having entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate for issuing process for compelling the attendance of any witness or further production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate has to issue such process, unless the Magistrate is convinced that such an application is only for the purpose of vexation or delay. This Court is of the definite opinion that a document to be proved in support of the defence case has to be called for in evidence during the stage contemplated under Section 233 of the Cr.P.C. The instant application, during the course of prosecution evidence, to adduce evidence with respect to defence document, appears to be misconceived. In the circumstances, the impugned Order is not interfered with, however, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek appropriate relief in respect of Ext.P2 before the Trial Court during the stage 2025:KER:27910 OP(Crl).No.207 of 2025 :7: contemplated under Section 233 of the Cr.P.C. Application, if any, filed in this regard will be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law. Subject to the above reservation, this Original Petition will stand dismissed. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj.