Criminal Law – Evidence – Opinion of hand writing expert – Appreciation of – Appellant-accused was working as Postman at the relevant time – On 09.04.92, PW-3 sent registered envelope to the Complainant-PW-1 – Envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/- – Envelope did not reach PW-1 who made complaint to the Department of Posts – Information was received that a person named “Mohan” received the aforesaid registry – PW-1 and his son named Devesh Mohan (PW-2) went to the Post Office and saw the signature where it was written “D. Mohan” – PW-2 denied that the signature in question belongs to him – Investigation revealed that the appellant forged the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 – Trial court convicted the appellant u/ss.467, 468, IPC– Appellant’s appeal and revision were dismissed – Held: Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial – In the present case, the report of the Government Forensic Science Laboratory was in favour of the appellant – But since the handwriting expert from the said laboratory was not examined, the said report cannot be looked into – Further, the private hand-writing experts (PW-5 and PW-8, son of the hand writing expert who died by the time of the trial) opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures of PW-2, “S-1 to S-6” – Appellant not right in contending that the courts below based the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writing experts – Evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 – Conviction u/ss.467 & 468 IPC, confirmed – Under ss.467 & 468, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four and three years with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively – Occurrence was of the year 1992 – Appellant has been in custody from 04.07.18 i.e. for more than 18 months – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed is reduced to the period already undergone – Appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467, 468.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2 stated that the registry is said to have been received at his house on 13.04.1992 and on the said date, he was not present at home as he had gone for coaching at 10:00 am and had come back to the house at about 04:00 pm. On being shown the delivery slipEx.-P4, PW-2 clearly denied that it does not bear his signature. The evidence of PW-2 denying his signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip is a valuable piece of evidence supporting the case of the prosecution. The courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings that by the evidence of PW-2, the prosecution has clearly established that PW-2 had not put the signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writing experts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is in favour of the appellant. But as rightly pointed out by the courts below that since the hand-writing expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, the said report cannot be looked into. The appellant-accused had also not summoned the hand-writing expert from the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence. [Paras 12, 13] [63-H; 64-A-E]
1.2 Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. [Para 17] [66-D]
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439 – referred to.
Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 : [1977] 2 SCR 1007 ; Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704 : [1980] 2 SCR 249 – relied on.
1.3 The hand-writing experts - PW-5 and ‘SRG’ opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures-”S-1 to S-6". Handwriting experts also opined that the one who wrote the specimen signatures had not written the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.P4. As pointed out by the courts below, the evidence of handwriting expert is the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 who denied his signature in Ex.-P4. The counsel for the appellant is not right in contending that the courts below have based the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writing experts. The evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and other evidence, the High Court rightly found that the appellant who delivered the registered envelope at the place of the complainant-PW-1 is bound to explain as to who made the alleged signature in Ex.-P4-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 the appellant who delivered the envelope as he is the only person having knowledge of the same. From the evidence of PW-3, the prosecution has proved that the envelope contained valuable security-four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings that the appellant has forged the signature of PW-2 and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is based upon the evidence and the conviction does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. For the conviction under Section 467 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and for the conviction under Section 468 IPC, for three years along with fine of Rs.500/-. The occurrence was of the year 1992. As seen from the custody certificate, the appellant has been in custody from 04.07.2018 i.e. for a period of more than eighteen months. Considering that the occurrence was of the year 1992 and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. The impugned judgment is accordingly modified. [Paras 18-21] [67-F-H; 68-A-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.