Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
, J
Satya Shome – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision application against conviction for forgery. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. testimonies insufficient to establish authorship. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. expert opinions require corroboration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. prosecution must prove intent and knowledge. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court sets aside conviction due to inadequate evidence. (Para 22) |
1. This is a revision application under S.439, Criminal P. C., against a conviction under S.466, Indian Penal Code and sentence of three years' R. I., passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tripura, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tripura.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused had forged a residential permit (Ext. P - 2), purporting to have been issued by the Registration Officer, Agartala, permitting one Miss. Rekha Rani Saha to remain in India until 13-8-60.
3. The prosecution case, mainly, rests on the evidence of P. W. 6, the hand writing expert who deposed in his evidence that on a comparison of Exts P - 5, P - 6, P - 7 and P - 8 (a), P - 8 (b) and P - 8 (c), which purport to be the standard hand - writings of the accused - petitioner wi
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
