1. Conviction under Section 4 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, based on recovery of threatening letters and handwriting expert opinion. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. S. Anand, G. T. Nanavati
AMARJIT SINGH, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF U.P., RESPONDENT.
Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1989,
decided on January 9, 1996.
Important Points
Specimen handwriting obtained by an official not conducting the inquiry or trial is inadmissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Convictions are unsustainable when the chain of custody for forensic evidence is broken and recoveries lack independent witness corroboration, failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Terrorism
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Section 4 - Evidence Act - Section 73 - investigation - Charge-sheet - He handed over same to Four days later he found yet another threatening letter in an envelope at door his house which also was handed over by him to complaint was lodged with Superintendent of Police by with regard to first threatening letter and with regard to second threatening letter - Two letters along with envelopes were handed over to police along with complaint - He also handed over opinion of Handwriting Expert police - According to letters were written in handwriting of accused - Formal case was registered by Head Constable - Station House Officer started investigation onwards – Held, So far as second circumstance related to recovery of documents is concerned that also does not appear to be free from doubt - According to after recovery of two letters and envelopes from left pocket of shirt of appellant same were put in sealed cover and witnesses were made to put their signatures on same - During his cross-examination however admitted - Not take signatures of witnesses on recovered envelopes and letters - Witness also admitted that there were no signatures of witnesses on cover and that cloth which had been used for sealing articles was not available - These factors create a doubt about genuineness of recovery particularly when court find that only two independent witnesses were given up by prosecution and not examined at trial - During his cross-examination also admitted - Do not remember as to whether at time arrest those witnesses whose statements were taken down by me had even reached place of arrest or not - It could be because of this ambiguity that prosecution deliberately did not examine those two witnesses – Order accordingly
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged conviction and sentence, denying the recovery of incriminating letters and the voluntariness of specimen handwriting. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Prosecution failed to prove voluntary specimen writing, maintain a secure chain of custody for expert evidence, or establish the genuineness of the recovery. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Conviction cannot be sustained where specimen handwriting is obtained involuntarily, the chain of custody of forensic evidence is broken, and recovery is not independently witnessed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. (Para 10 )
6. When is specimen handwriting obtained by an SDM inadmissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act?
Specimen writing is inadmissible if it is not given voluntarily and is not obtained to assist the court in forming its opinion during an inquiry or trial. (Para 7 )
7. What effect does a break in the chain of custody have on handwriting expert evidence?
If the identity of the documents sent to an expert is doubtful due to unauthorized opening of sealed covers without proper memos, the expert's opinion becomes unreliable. (Para 8 )
8. What factors undermine the credibility of recovery of incriminating documents by police?
Lack of witness signatures on recovered items, failure to examine independent witnesses, and discrepancies in the identity of documents presented at trial undermine the genuineness of recovery. (Para 9 )
ORDER
1. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 4 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut and vide judgment dated 7-6-1989, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Through this statutory appeal he has called in question, his sentence and conviction.
2. On 1-6-1985, Brijesh Chand, PW 2, brother of Yogesh Chand Maheshwari, Advocate, PW 1, found a threatening letter in an envelope at the door of his house. He handed over the same to PW 1. Four days later, on 5-6-1985, he found yet another threatening letter in an envelope at the door of his house which also was handed over by him to PW 1. A complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar by PW 1 with regard to the first threatening letter on 2-6-1985 and with regard to the second threatening letter on 5-6-1985 at PS Meerapur. The two letters Exts. 2 and 3 along with the envelopes Exts. 27 and 28 were handed over to the police along with the complaint. He also handed over the opinion of Handwriting Expert, Brij Pal Singh, Ext. 22, to the police. According to Ext. 22, the letters were written in the handwriting of Neeraj Kumar, accused. Formal case was registered by Yograj, Head Constable PW 1. Magendra Pal Singh, PW 9, Station House Officer, P. S. Meerapur started investigation from 6-6-1985 onwards. During the investigation, he got information through an informant that the appellant Amarjit Singh @ Bunty had a hand in sending those letters and that the said Amarjit Singh was present at his house. On the basis of the information, SHO Magendra Pal Singh along with SI Vinod Kumar Verma, PW 8 and other police officials went to the house of the appellant and as soon as the appellant came out of the house, he was arrested by the police party at about 8.00 a.m. From the search of the appellant, one country-made pistol and three cartridges were recovered. From the pocket of the shirt of the appellant, two envelopes, Exts. 4 and 25 containing two letters, Exts. 1 and 26 were also recovered. The letters and the envelopes were taken into possession vide inemo Ext. Ka-7. They were put in a parcel which was sealed at the spot. Both the letters, like Exts. 2 and 3, were threatening letters. During the investigation, the specimen writings of the appellant and Neeraj Kumar were obtained by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on a request from the Investigating Officer, on 22-6-1985. We specimen writings along with the recovered letters and envelopes were sent to the Government Handwriting Expert, Shri Prakash Chand Pathak, PW 3 for examination. Vide report Ext. Ka-2, the expert opined that the disputed writings tallied with the specimen writing of the appellant but did not tally with the specimen writing of Neeraj Kumar, who as already noticed was stated to be the author of Exts. 2 and 3 vide Ext. 22 by the other handwriting expert. Inspector Ram Chander Verma, PW 4, who had taken over the investigation under orders of the Superintendent of Police, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 4-7-1987. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC pleaded not guilty and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He denied to have written any letter as also the recovery of the letters and the envelopes from his possession. He stated that he had been arrested during the night at about 12.00 or 1.00 a.m. and made to write some letters by the police at their dictation. He denied that he had any link with any institute or organisation advocating establishment of Khalistan or was in any other manner connected with any terrorist activity. The trial court after analysing the evidence concluded :
"To sum up, it may be mentioned that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt that the letters and envelo
