The court emphasized that opinion evidence must be supported by substantial corroborating evidence in criminal trials to uphold a conviction, reaffirming the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Kumari, learned Standing counsel, CBI.

2. The challenge in the present criminal appeal is to the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 11/2005, convicting the appellant, herein, under Sections 419/420 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years for the offence under Section 419 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo 1 (one) year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The CBI authorities had submitted a charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 5/2004, dated 07.01.2004, following investigations made in two cases, i.e., R.C. No. 5/E/2001-Cal and No.6/E/2001-Cal, which were registered by the CBI authorities on transfer to it of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 199/1998 and No. 202/1998, respectively, to it. The two cases, being Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 199/1998 and No. 202/1998 were registered basing on two FIRs lodged on 06.04.1998 by Sh. N.N. Barkakaty, the then Chief Executive Director, Assam State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank (ASCARD) Limited, Guwahati.

The prosecution case in brief is that a loan was sanctioned to one Samser Ali by the ASCARD Bank for purchasing a vehicle and for the purpose, an amount of Rs.4,08,220/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred Twenty) was sanctioned and paid through cheque No. 181981 on 26.02.1996. It was alleged that Mukibur Rahman, the peon of the said bank, who was attached to Imran Shah, also an accused, had signed as Md. Samser Ali in the loan application, demand promissory note, etc. and had also opened an SB Account opening form of the account No. 5855, in the name of Samser Ali.

The CBI authorities on conclusion of the investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused, Imran Shah and the appellant, herein, under Sections 120B/420 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and a handwriting expert and defence side examined 2 witnesses.

On conclusion of the trial, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Basing on the evidences coming on record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit Imran Shah from the charge framed against him in the case and basing on the evidences coming on record, more particularly, the evidence of the Handwriting Expert proceeded to convict the appellant, herein under Sections 419/420 IPC and also under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced him, as noticed hereinabove.

4. Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court through the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter has contended that the conviction of the appellant, herein, is primarily based on the evidences adduced by the Forensic Expert as PW19. He submits that the said evidence adduced by PW19 is merely an opinion and the same was not corroborated by the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses.

Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce any substantive evidence against the appellant and that the learned Trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the accused person relying solely on the opinion of the Handwriting Expert (PW19). The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses, examined on behalf of the prosecution, stated nothing against the appellant and as such, in the absence of any substantive direct or ci