Law Web: Supreme Court: Evidence of Hand-writing Expert must be Corroborated by either Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

It is fairly well settled that 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. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. …….True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority

that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the

opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the

opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of

expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses

— the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment

is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of

observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of

conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science,

the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the

science is less developed and imperfect. The science of

identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the

risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other

hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so

perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from

doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule

and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case,

howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons.

It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial

suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion

has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him.

An expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish the

Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy

of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own

independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the

facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v.

Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in

his evidence).”

5. …….

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence

Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to

identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in

questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant

fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon

before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there

need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a

court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be

no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the

opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the

sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court

while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to

proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all

other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020

PADUM KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated:January 14, 2020.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned

judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High

Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant

confirming his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the

sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:-

The appellant-Padum Kumar was then working as Postman in

Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow. On 09.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L.

Varshney, Professor, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent

a registered envelope No.0095 to the Complainant-Dr. K.B.

Varshney (PW-1) from the Sub-Post Office of the said Institute. The

said envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each

Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-. The envelope did not reach PW-1-

Dr. K.B. Varshney; therefore, on 27.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L.

Varshney made a complaint before the Post Master, Post Office,

Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad. PW-1-Complainant-Dr. K.B.

Varshney also enquired from Indira Nagar Post Office. On

29.04.1992, PW-1 had also filed a complaint to the Senior

Superintendent, Department of Posts that the envelope Registry

No.0095 has not been received. On 14.05.1992, information was

received from Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknow

that a person named “Mohan” has received the aforesaid registry on

13.04.1992. Then, PW-1 and his son Devesh Mohan-PW-2 went to

Indira Nagar Post Office and saw the signature where it has been

written as “D. Mohan”. Complainant’s son is also named Devesh

Mohan (PW-2). On being shown the signature, PW-2 denied that

the signature in question belongs to him. A case was registered in

Crime No.394/1992 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC at P.S.

Ghazipur, Lucknow. The case was investigated. Later on, the

investigation of the case was entrusted to C.B. C.I.D.

4. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of

various witnesses. The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed

signature along with the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh

Mohan to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. As per the

report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, the

person who has made specimen signatures has also made the

disputed signature in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. The disputed

signature “Q-1” along with the specimen signatures of PW-2 “S-1 to

S-6” were sent to private hand-writing expert M.Y. Khan-PW-5. In

his evidence, PW-5 has stated that on comparison of the disputed

signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip with the specimen signatures

of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6”, he came to the conclusion that the disputed

signature is different from the specimen signatures and PW-5 had

issued his report-Ex.-P9. Yet another hand-writing expert Siya Ram

Gupta had also examined the disputed signature with reference to

the specimen signatures. Siya Ram Gupta had opined that the

disputed signature in the delivery slip has not been made by PW-2-

Devesh Mohan. By the time of trial, hand-writing expert Siya Ram

Gupta passed away and his son Ranjeet Kumar has been

examined as PW-8. As PW-8-Ranjeet Kumar was acquainted with

the hand-writing of his father-Siya Ram Gupta, the report of handwriting

expert Siya Ram Gupta has been marked through his son-

PW-8. The investigation revealed that the appellant had forged the

signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. On completion of

investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellantaccused

under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.

5. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution

has examined PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, PW-2-Devesh Mohan, PW-

3- Dr. M.L. Varshney, hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khan, PW-8-

Ranjeet Kumar, son of another hand-writing expert-Siya Ram Gupta

and other witnesses. Upon consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence, the trial court noted that three hand-writing

experts are on record. According to one expert, the disputed

signature has been made by Devesh Mohan-PW-2. The trial court

also noted that the other two experts have mentioned in their

reports that the disputed signature “Q-1” in delivery slip do not

match with the specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6”. The trial court

held that the appellant being the Postman did the work of delivery of

registry and the delivery slip was kept with him therefore, the

conclusion is that the appellant made the signature of “D. Mohan” in

the delivery slip. The trial court held that the appellant frequently

used to visit the house of the complainant-PW-1 by taking registries

and letters and thus, he was well-acquainted with the signature of

PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Based upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and

the reports of hand-writing experts, the trial court held that the

appellant had committed the offence of forgery and convicted him

under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment of four years and three years respectively.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. Challenging the conviction, the appellant has filed an appeal

before the appellate court – Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Lucknow. The appellate court dismissed the appeal by holding that

upon proper analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the

trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 467

and 468 IPC.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.511

of 2006 before the High Court of Allahabad which came to be

dismissed by the impugned judgment. The High Court held that the

prosecution has adduced evidence proving that the signature of

“D. Mohan” in the delivery slip and the specimen signatures of

PW-2-Devesh Mohan differs. The High Court further held that the

appellant was the person who delivered the envelope and in such

circumstances, it is for the appellant to explain as to who signed the

disputed signature and in the absence of any such explanation from

the appellant, the presumption is to be raised against the appellant

that he is the only person having knowledge of the same. The

revision was accordingly dismissed and the conviction of the

appellant was affirmed.

8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Saurabh Mishra,

learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without

proving that the appellant has forged the signature in Ex.-P4-

delivery slip, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and

468 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submitted

that the courts below erred in not considering that the Government

hand-writing expert’s report was in favour of the appellant. It was

submitted that in the absence of examination of hand-writing expert

Siya Ram Gupta who gave the opinion, the report of Siya Ram

Gupta cannot be proved by examining his son-Ranjeet Kumar-PW-

and the courts below ought not to have placed reliance upon the

opinion of the hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khan and another

hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta. It was contended that the High

Court erred in holding that it is for the appellant to prove as to who

signed in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and the High Court erred in raising the

presumption against the appellant and the conviction of the

appellant is not sustainable.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel for

the respondent-State has submitted that upon proper appreciation

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly

convicted the appellant. It was submitted that the prosecution relies

upon not merely on the opinion of the hand-writing experts, but the

evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan, son of complainant-Dr. K.B.

Varshney (PW-1) who has denied having put his signature in Ex.-

P4-delivery slip and the prosecution has well established the guilt of

the appellant.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned judgment and other materials on record.

11. By adducing the evidence of Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3), the

prosecution has proved that on 09.04.1992, PW-3 had sent a

registered envelope No.0095 to PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, Indira

Nagar, Lucknow. When PW-1 did not receive the said envelope, on

27.04.1992, PW-3 complained the same to the concerned Sub-Post

Office, Naini, Allahabad. PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney also filed a

complaint on 29.04.1992 to the Senior Superintendent, Department

of Posts, Lucknow. After investigation, it was learnt that on

14.05.1992, a person named Mohan has received the aforesaid

registry on 13.04.1992.

12. In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2-Devesh Kumar

has 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 slip-

Ex.-P4, PW-2 clearly denied that it does not bear his signature. PW-

2 further stated that the appellant had brought the registry and his

mother had received them. It is to be pointed out that neither the

name of “Devesh Mohan” nor the name of “mother of PW-2” was

written on the distribution slip; but some other thing had been

written. 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-Devesh Mohan had not put the signature in

Ex.-P4-delivery slip.

13. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writing

experts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan.

Of course, hand-writing expert’s report by the Government Forensic

Science Laboratory, Lucknow has stated that the person who has

written the specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6” had written the

disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. 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 handwriting

expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow had

not been examined, the said report cannot be looked into. It is

pertinent to note that the appellant-accused had also not

summoned the hand-writing expert from the Government Forensic

Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence.

14. Be that as it may, the hand-writing expert-M.Y. Khan (PW-5) in

his report-Ex.-P9 has stated that the person who had written the

specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6” had not written the disputed

signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and that the same is different

from the signature of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. In his report, PW-5 had

also explained as to how the disputed signature does not match

with the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Likewise, in

his report, hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta had also opined that

the disputed signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip has not been written

by PW-2-Devesh Mohan. By the time when the trial was taken up,

hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta passed away and his son-

Ranjeet Kumar (PW-8) who was acquainted with the hand-writing of

Siya Ram Gupta was examined to mark the report.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without

independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting

experts cannot be relied upon to base the conviction.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance upon S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC

596, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

“28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot be said

to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the

disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of

evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering

‘conclusive’ proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without

seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari

Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the

evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:

“… We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the

appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a

handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion

must always be received with great caution and perhaps none

so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.

There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that

it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion

without substantial corroboration. This rule has been

universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law.

It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR

1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting

opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied

upon when supported by other items of internal and external

evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad

Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of

handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all,

opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi

Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529

where it was pointed out by this Court that expert’s evidence

as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever,

take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on

such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is

corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by

circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to

consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to

handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326

and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be

risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a

handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the

court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by

other evidence, direct or circumstantial.”

16. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the

evidence of the hand-writing expert. As held by the Supreme Court

in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 that

“expert opinion must always be received with great caution……..it is

unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without

substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon

and it has almost become a rule of law.”

17. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the