Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard.

2. This appeal by the accused/appellant challenging his conviction under Sections, 302, 364 and 201 of IPC, raises a pertinent question as to whether the conviction for kidnapping, murder and concealment of evidence, can be sustained only on the basis of positive report of the Handwriting Expert.

3. The accused was tried for the subject offences on the allegation that at about 10 AM on 15.02.2003, he accompanied the deceased's mother from village Sahaspur to village Ghatia and reached there in nearly 3 hours. He came back within next 3 hours and reached village Sahaspur at about 4:00 p.m. He along with PW-12 Taimanlal and deceased Shubham, aged 8 years, were watching TV shows in the house of the deceased. It is said, from this place, the appellant kidnapped the deceased on a bicycle. In the morning of 22.02.2003, Mansaram (father of PW-3 Ajaykumar) was informed by the villagers that a dead body is floating in the well belonging to Madan Sahu at a distance of about 1 km from his house on Sahaspur-Rajpur road. Mansaram went towards the well and identified the dead body through the clothes worn by the deceased.

4. The Postmortem was conducted by PW-13 Dr. S.K. Jangde, who submitted his report - Ex-P-9 opining that the mode of death is asphyxia due to airway obstruction due to inhalation of water caused by drowning. He also found ligature marks and reddish colour skin lesion, ante-mortem in nature. Ligature marks were also found around umbilicus, more prominent on front side of abdomen caused by double rounded, thin steel wire. On further query, the doctor answered vide Ex-P-20 that the death may be more than 7 days old because putrefaction is slow when the dead body is drowned in the water. In the course of further investigation, PW-22 Mohan Netam handed over one unstamped letter to the police, which, in turn, was given to him by PW-2 Smt. Geetanjali (mother of the deceased). This envelope and letter inside it were marked as Ex-P36 & 37. Another envelope and letter were recovered from Chandrabhan Thakur (not examined) vide Ex-P/24. These two envelopes and letters were sent for opinion of the Handwriting Expert, on which, the Handwriting Expert -PC Trivedi (PW-16) submitted his report vide Ex-P-85 and P-86 affirming that the envelopes and letters were written by the appellant. The investigating officer also recovered one dot pen belonging to the deceased vide Ex-P-8 pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex-P-7.

5. The charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and one Kamlesh, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. The case of the prosecution rested on (I) circumstantial evidence in the nature of evidence of last seen together, (ii) recovery of pen at the instance of the appellant and (iii) the opinion of the Handwriting Expert proving that the ransom letters were written by the appellant. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of findings against him on the above three circumstances.

6. Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant, has seriously questioned the evidence of last seen together and recovery of pen. Having done so, he would submit that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert alone, being a weak type of evidence, should not be based for conviction without necessary corroboration.

7. On the other hand, Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Dy. AG would refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Murarlilal Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 to argue that if the opinion of the Handwriting expert is of unimpeachable character, the same can form basis of conviction. He would also submit that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is duly corroborated by the evidence of last seen together and recovery of pen. He would further submit that when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant did not offer any explanation to question No.39 regarding adverse opinion of the Handwriting Expert against him, therefore, it