Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Padum Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6990 of 2018)
Decided on : 14-01-2020.
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – Report of hand writing expert – Evidentiary value – Before acting upon opinion of hand-writing expert, prudence requires that court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence – It is not safe to base conviction solely on evidence of hand-writing expert – Expert opinion must always be received with great caution – It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration – This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 467 and 468 – Falsification of documents – Conviction and sentence – Based upon evidence of PWs and reports of hand-writing experts, trial court held that appellant had committed offence of forgery and convicted him under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and three years respectively – Both sentences were directed to run concurrently – While dismissing appeal, High Court further held that appellant was the person who delivered envelope and in such circumstances, it is for appellant to explain as to who signed disputed signature and in absence of any such explanation from appellant, presumption is to be raised against appellant that he is only person having knowledge of same – Since handwriting expert from Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, said report cannot be looked into – Appellant-accused had also not summoned hand-writing expert from Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence – In absence of any explanation by appellant-accused, presumption is to be raised against appellant who delivered envelope as he is the only person having knowledge of same – Conviction confirmed – Appellant has been in custody for a period of more than eighteen months – Considering that occurrence was of year 1992 and facts and circumstances of case, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon appellant is reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 5, 7, 13, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred challenging impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by appellant confirming his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.
Findings of Court:
High Court rightly found that appellant who delivered registered envelope at the place of the complainant-PW-1 is bound to explain as to who made alleged signature in delivery slip. In the absence of any explanation by the appellant-accused, as held by the High Court, a presumption is to be raised against appellant who delivered envelope as he is the only person having knowledge of the same.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
The courts have expressed a cautious approach regarding forensic examination results, emphasizing that expert opinion evidence should be corroborated by other evidence before being relied upon for conviction. They have noted that the opinion of a handwriting expert, in particular, is considered a piece of corroborative evidence rather than conclusive proof on its own. The courts have highlighted that expert testimony must be carefully scrutinized, and reliance solely on such evidence without independent or reliable corroboration is unsafe.
Additionally, the courts have acknowledged that the science of handwriting identification is not entirely perfect and that the risk of error exists. Therefore, the opinion of a handwriting expert should be supported by other direct or circumstantial evidence to strengthen the case. They have also pointed out that the opinion of an expert is meant to assist the court in forming its own judgment and should be tested by the reasons provided by the expert.
Overall, the courts advocate a cautious and corroborative approach towards forensic examination results, stressing that such evidence is not to be solely determinative of guilt or innocence without supporting evidence.
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant confirming his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.
3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:-
The appellant-Padum Kumar was then working as Postman in Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow. On 09.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L. Varshney, Professor, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent a registered envelope No.0095 to the Complainant-Dr. K.B. Varshney (PW-1) from the Sub-Post Office of the said Institute. The said envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-. The envelope did not reach PW-1- Dr. K.B. Varshney; therefore, on 27.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L. Varshney made a complaint before the Post Master, Post Office, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad. PW-1-Complainant-Dr.K.B. Varshney also enquired from Indira Nagar Post Office. On 29.04.1992, PW-1 had also filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts that the envelope Registry No.0095 has not been received. On 14.05.1992, information was received from Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknow that a person named “Mohan” has received the aforesaid registry on 13.04.1992. Then, PW-1 and his son Devesh Mohan-PW-2 went to Indira Nagar Post Office and saw the signature where it has been written as “D. Mohan”. Complainant’s son is also named Devesh Mohan (PW-2). On being shown the signature, PW-2 denied that the signature in question belongs to him. A case was registered in Crime No.394/1992 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC at P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow. The case was investigated. Later on, the investigation of the case was entrusted to C.B. C.I.D.
4. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of various witnesses. The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed signature along with the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. As per the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, the person who has made specimen signatures has also made the disputed signature in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. The disputed signature “Q-1” along with the specimen signatures of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6” were sent to private hand-writing expert M.Y. Khan-PW-5. In his evidence, PW-5 has stated that on comparison of the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip with the specimen signatures of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6”, he came to the conclusion that the disputed signature is different from the specimen signatures and PW-5 had issued his report-Ex.-P9. Yet another hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta had also examined the disputed signature with reference to the specimen signatures. Siya Ram Gupta had opined that the disputed signature in the delivery slip has not been made by PW-2- Devesh Mohan. By the time of trial, hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta passed away and his son Ranjeet Kumar has been examined as PW-8. As PW-8-Ranjeet Kumar was acquainted with the hand-writing of his father-Siya Ram Gupta, the report of hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta has been marked through his son-PW-8. The investigation revealed that the appellant had forged the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant- accused under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
5. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, PW-2-Devesh Mohan, PW-3-Dr. M.L. Varshney, hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khan, PW-8- Ranjeet Kumar, son of another hand-writing expert-Siya Ram Gupta and other witnesses. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court noted that three hand-writing experts are on record. According to one expert,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
