Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Rajinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No.321 of 2015
Decided On : 01-12-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/ State:Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General
Uncorroborated fingerprint expert opinion insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 409, 477A where beneficiaries turn hostile and deny non-disbursal of pension funds.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409 and 477-A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 157 - Criminal revision against conviction for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts by postal functionary entrusted with old age pension funds - Beneficiaries turned hostile, denied non-disbursal - Fingerprint expert report matching accused’s thumb impression with purported impression of beneficiary - Held, expert opinion not substantive evidence, requires corroboration - Prior statements/complaints of hostile witnesses only corroborative, not substantive - Oral evidence fails to prove non-disbursal beyond reasonable doubt - Trial and appellate courts erred in relying on uncorroborated expert opinion and misreading contradictory witness testimony - Revision allowed; accused acquitted. (Paras 19-34)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction limited - Not appellate jurisdiction; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity, jurisdictional error, patent defect or gross miscarriage of justice - Concurrent findings not to be upset merely because another view possible. (Paras 13-18)
Facts of the case:
Postal functionary entrusted with Rs.7200/- old age pension for six beneficiaries allegedly misappropriated funds, forged thumb impressions on money order forms - Department recovered amount, lodged complaint leading to investigation, FIR - Beneficiaries examined turned hostile - Expert opined match of accused’s thumb impression - Convicted by trial court under Sections 409, 477-A IPC (2 years RI each + fine), upheld in appeal; revision filed.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to prove entrustment leading to misappropriation and forgery beyond reasonable doubt - Uncorroborated expert evidence insufficient - Conviction unsustainable.
Issues: Whether conviction sustainable on uncorroborated fingerprint expert opinion absent supporting beneficiary testimony; propriety of relying on prior statements of hostile witnesses as substantive evidence; scope of interference in revision against concurrent convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: Fingerprint expert evidence not substantive, must be corroborated; hostile witnesses’ prior statements under Evidence Act Section 157 merely corroborative; no conviction where oral evidence contradictory and fails to establish non-disbursal/misappropriation despite expert report.
Result: Revision allowed; judgments of courts below set aside; accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision challenges conviction for pension misappropriation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial examined witnesses; victims turned hostile. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. lower courts convicted on entrustment and expert evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioner contests evidence; state upholds findings. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. victims' contradictory testimonies unreliable. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. prior statements only corroborate, not substantive. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. fingerprint evidence needs corroboration for conviction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. accused acquitted; judgments set aside. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla ( learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2013 and order of sentence dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police filed a challan against the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the accused Rajinder Singh was posted as ‘Gramin Dak Sewak’ at Chopal. He misappropriated Rs. 7200/- sent by the Welfare Department as old age pension to Pinjari Devi (PW-13), Mastoo Devi (PW-14), Kalavati (PW-6), Sundroo (PW-9), Jhami Devi (PW-7) and Subhda (PW-5). This amount was recovered by the Postal department, and a complaint (Ext.PW-1/A) was made to the Police. The police registered the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-19/A). Govind Ram (PW-26) investigated the matter. Pratap Singh (PW-1) produced the receipt of Rs. 7200/- (Ext.P-1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Thumb impression of the accused (Ext.P-21/A-129 to Ext.P-21/A-138) and finger prints of the victims (Ext.P-21/A-1 to Ext.P-21/A-117) were taken and sent to Finger Print Phillaur for comparison. Kuldeep Singh (PW-27) issued the reports (Ext-PW-27/B and Ext.PW-27/B-1) stating that the fingerprints of the accused matched the fingerprints purported to have been put by Mastoo Devi (PW-14) on the money order. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigations, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.
3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined twenty-seven witnesses to prove its case. Pratap Singh (PW-1) was posted as a Sub Post Master and handed over the money to the accused for disbursal. Mohar Singh (PW-2), Om Parkash (PW-3), Duni Chand (PW-4) and Purshotam Chauhan (PW-15) are the witnesses to the recovery. Subhda (PW-5), Kalavati (PW-6), Jhami Devi (PW-7), Sundroo (PW-9), Pinjari Devi (PW-13) and Mastoo Devi (PW-14) are the victims and have not supported the prosecution’s case. Ram Dev (PW-8)conducted the inquiry after receipt of the complaint regarding the misappropriation of money. Man Singh (PW-10) and Brij Mohan (PW-12) were present during the inquiry. Sushil Kumar (PW-11) produced the money order forms. Lokinder Singh (PW-16) was told about the misappropriation of the pension amount. Bhopinder Singh (PW-17) wrote an application to the department regarding non-disbursal of the amount. Keshu Ram (PW-18) proved the sanction of the old age pension. HC Pritam Singh (PW-19) signed the F.I.R. HC Mohan (PW-20) seized the records. Om Prakash Negi (PW-21) was posted as Executive Magistrate in whose prese
