Judgment

DUA, J. : - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated October 6, 1969 dismissing the appellant s revision from the order of a II Temporary Sessions Judge, Kanpur dated November 8, 1967 dismissing his appeal from his conviction by a learned Magistrate under Sections 384/511, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one Year.

2. On August 15, 1964, Mannu. a boy about 5 years old, was found missing from the house of the appellant s relation Shri Gajendra Nath (P.W. 19) an Excise Inspector, residing in Mohalla Ashok Nagar, Kanpur within the jurisdiction of police station Sisamau. The following day a report was lodged at the police station Sisamau about this fact and a notice was also published in the newspapers and handbills were distributed announcing a reward of Rupees 501/- for anyone who furnished the clue of the missing child s whereabouts. A post-card (Ext Ka-1) bearing post office seals dated 21-8-1964 and later an inland letter (Ext. Ka-2) bearing the date October 21, 1954 were received by Gajendra Nath demanding in the first letter a ransom of Rs. 1,000/-, and in the second a ransom of Rs. 5,000/-for the return of the boy. In December, 1964, a trainee of the local I.T.I., Kanpur, Yashpal Singh by name, after reading the announcement of the reward made attempts to trace the whereabouts of the missing child. Having, found a clue, he gave the necessary information to the father of the child regarding his whereabouts. Thereupon, on January 11, 1965 the child was recovered by Rahasbehari, the grandfather of the child, from the house of Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabhushan Singh in village Pandeypur District Kanpur. The investigation of the case revealed that the appellant, Ram Narain, was also responsible for kidnapping and wrongfully confining the said child and that it was he who had sent the two anonymous letters (Exts, Ka-1 and Ka-2) demanding ransom. All the three persons were prosecuted under Sections 363. 368 and 384/511, I.P.C. The trial Court convicted Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabhushan Singh under Section 368, I.P.C. and Ram Narain appellant under Sections 384/511. I.P.C. On appeals by the convicted persons, the learned II Temporary Sessions Judge, Kanpur, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 368, I.P.C. had not been established beyond reasonable doubt with the result that Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabhushan were acquitted. The appellant Ram Narain s conviction for an offence under Sections 384/511, I. P. C. was, however, upheld. This conviction was solely based on the conclusion that the two anonymous letters had been written by him. The appellant having categorically denied his authorship of those letters, Shri R. A. Gregory a handwriting expert was produced in support of the prosecution case. Believing his testimony that the appellant was the writer of those two letters all the three courts below have agreed in convicting the appellant.

3. The short question raised before us relates to the legality and propriety of the appellant s conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the handwriting expert. The High Court relied in support of the appellant s conviction on the decision of this Court in Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1967 SC 1326) in which after referring to four of its earlier decisions in

(i) Ram Chandra v. State of U. P (AIR 1957 SC 381)

(ii) Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa (AIR 1963 SC 1728)

(iii) Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 529)

(iv) State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chhotalal Patni (1967) 1 SCR 249 = (AIR 1967 SC 778)

this Court rejected the contention that the Court dealing with the authorship of a writing could not observe for itself the similarity and differences between the admitted and the disputed handwritings to verify whether or not the conclusions of the handwriting expert were proper. Then after referring to Sections 45, 47 and 73