Delhi District Court
Ramesh Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of N.C.T on 4 June, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 01/2016
Case ID No. 02401R0011472016
Ramesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hari Ram,
R/o House No. J72, Seelampur,
Delhi110053.
.......Appellant
Vs.
The State (Govt. of N.C.T., Delhi)
........Respondent
Date of filing : 07.01.2016
Date of arguments : 02.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 04.06.2016
J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the convict
against the judgment dated 30.09.2015 and 'orderon
sentence', dated 07.12.2015, passed by the court of Shri
Babru Bhan, Ld. MM07, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi,
whereby, the appellant was held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 465 IPC and was sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 1 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
2
2. It has been stated in the present appeal that on
05.07.1999, one Hazari Lal (since deceased) appeared before
the SDM, Sadar Bazar and told him that one person was
attesting the documents with his forged signatures and seal
and had charged Rs.150/ from him, on which, SDM, Sadar
Bazar, sent the police officials to apprehend the accused and
at the instance of the said Hazari Lal, the appellant was
apprehended and stamp / seals of SDM Darya Ganj Sh. Raj
Kumar and Sh. D.S.Dalal, Notary Public, were recovered from
his possession and thereafter, case FIR No. 231/1999, u/s
420/468 IPC was registered against him at Police Station
Subzi Mandi, on the complaint of SDM, Sadar Bazar, Sh.
G.Sudhakar.
3. It is further stated that during the trial, the charges were
framed against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s
420 & 468 IPC and seven prosecution witnesses were
examined by the prosecution, to prove its case. It is further
stated that the FSL report was also admitted by the appellant
and the same was proved on record, as Ex.P1.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 2 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
3
4. It is further stated that vide impugned judgment and order
on sentence, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted
for the offence under Section 465 IPC and hence the present
appeal.
5. After filing of the present appeal, notice was duly issued to
the respondent / State and on 02.05.2016, the arguments on
the present appeal were addressed by Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Himanshu
Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / Respondent.
6. During the course of arguments, the main contention of
the Ld. Defence counsel has remained that there are a large
number of material contradictions in the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses and the appellant has been convicted
by the Ld. Trial Court, solely on the basis of the FSL report
Ex.P1. He has argued that the FSL report Ex.P1 was not
proved by any expert from the FSL. However, during the trial,
the appellant had admitted the said FSL report as correct,
being an illiterate person and therefore, without corroboration,
the conviction of the appellant, solely on the basis of report
Ex.P1, cannot be sustained.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 3 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
4
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the
Ld. Trial Court has committed gross error of law and has not
taken note of the contradictory statements of the prosecution
witnesses and has failed to note that no witness was examined
by the prosecution to prove that the forged documents were
prepared by the accused in his presence. He has further
argued that the Ld. Trial Court has committed a gross error of
law, while basing the conviction of the appellant, solely on the
basis of the report of the handwriting expert. He has further
argued that the Ld. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on
the basis of the conjectures and surmises and therefore, the
impugned judgment and order on sentence be setaside. The
Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments,
in support of his above contentions :
(i) Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab, reported as AIR
1977 Supreme Court 1091;
(ii) S.Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2184;
(iii) Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), reported as AIR 2003
Supreme Court 282;
(iv) Nirmal v. State of Punjab, reported as 2001(3)
C.C.Cases (HC) 225; and
(v) Raj Mani v. State, reported as 1997(2) C.C.Cases
101(HC).
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 4 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
5
8. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State /
Respondent has argued that the present case is squarely
covered under Illustration (b) of Section 464 of the Indian
Penal Code and therefore, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 465 of
IPC. He has further argued that during the trial, the
prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case
beyond a shadow of doubt and the genuineness of the FSL
report was admitted by the appellant himself on 18.09.2013
and the Ld. Trial Court has also recorded the statement of the
appellant / convict, on oath, in this regard. He has further
argued that the convict has further admitted in his statement,
u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that he was working as a stamp vendor and
he has sold the stamp paper to Sh. Hazari Lal. He has further
argued that the forged affidavit Ex.PW.5/DX1 was handed over
by Sh. Hazari Lal to the SDM, Sadar Bazar, Shri G.Sudhakar
(PW1) and this document bears the forged signatures, seal
and stamp of Shri G.Sudhakar (PW1) and this fact has been
corroborated by the FSL report and therefore, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present
appeal be, therefore, dismissed with heavy costs.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 5 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
6
9. I have carefully perused the case file and the trial court
record. I have also given my considered thoughts to the
arguments addressed by the Ld. Defence counsel for the
appellant and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State / Respondent. I
have also perused the various judgments cited by the Ld.
Defence counsel.
10. Perusal of the record shows that on 05.07.1999, Shri
G.Sudhakar (PW1) was working as SDM, Sadar Bazar and he
has deposed that on that day, he received a complaint from
one Hazari Lal son of Lalu Ram that a person has taken Rs.
150/ from him and had attested the affidavit relating to him,
under his forged signature, seal and stamp. Thereafter, he
deputed the Naib Court, attached with the court, alongwith the
said complainant, to trace the accused. He has further
deposed that due to their efforts, the seal and stamp of Sh. Raj
Kumar, the then SDM, Darya Ganj, Delhi and the seal of
Notary Public Sh. D.S.Dalal was recovered from the
possession of the appellant Ramesh Kumar. He has further
deposed that he referred the complaint dated 05.07.1999,
Ex.PW.1/A, to the chowki Incharge, Police Post at Tis Hazari,
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 6 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
7
Delhi, for further necessary action, as per law.
11. Perusal of the record further shows that case FIR No.
231/99 was registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, u/s 420/468 IPC,
against the appellant, on the basis of the complaint of Shri
G.Sudhakar (PW1), SDM Sadar Bazar, dated 05.07.1999,
Ex.PW.1/A. Alongwith the said complaint, Shri G.Sudhakar
(PW1) handed over a total of ten documents to the chowki
incharge, Police Post Tis Hazari of P.S. Subzi Mandi (including
his complaint dated 05.07.1999), alongwith the seal of the
SDM, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The aforesaid ten documents
included the complaint dated 05.07.1999; one statement of
Hazari Lal son of Sh. Lalu Ram, dated 05.07.1999, which was
recorded before Shri G.Sudhakar (PW1), SDM Sadar Bazar;
four photocopies of some documents; one undertaking on a
stamp paper, in the name of Hazari Lal (running into two
pages) (Ex.PW.5/DX1); one document containing second
page of the undertaking executed by Hazari Lal, duly attested
by the Notary Public, on 25.06.1999 and a separate sheet
containing specimen signatures of Hazari Lal son of Lalu Ram,
bearing his photograph also, duly attested by the Notary Public
on 25.06.1999.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 7 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
8
12. Perusal of the record further shows that in order to prove
the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined Sh. G.
Sudhakar, SDM, Sadar Bazar, as PW1; his Naib Court Const.
Vijay Singh as PW3; ASI Som Dev, who was posted as Naib
Court in the court of SDM, Kotwali, as PW4 and Const.
Satyavir Singh, who was also posted as Naib Court in the
court of SDM, Sadar Bazar, as PW5.
13. PW3 Const. Vijay Singh has deposed that on
05.07.1999, one person, namely, Hazari Lal came to their
office and informed that one person was attesting the
documents of the public persons with the steal of SDM, Sadar
Bazar, Delhi, below Police Post Tis Hazari, without any
authorization. On this, SDM Sadar Bazar sent him, alongwith
Const. Satyavir (PW5), to the spot and they found that the
appellant was putting the seal of SDM, Sadar Bazar on the
documents of the public persons. Thereafter, they took him to
the office of SDM, Sadar Bazar and conducted his formal
search on the directions of SDM Sadar Bazar, in which, two
seals; one with the name of SDM Darya Ganj Sh. Raj Kumar
and the other in the name of Shri D.S.Dalal, Notary Public,
were recovered. Thereafter, SDM Sadar Bazar called the
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 8 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
9
police officials and both the aforesaid seals were handed over
to the IO, which was seized by him, vide seizure memo
Ex.PW.3/A.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri G.Sudhakar
(PW1), the then SDM, Sadar Bazar has not deposed that the
seals of SDM Darya Ganj, Sh. Raj Kumar and seal of Shri
D.S.Dalal, Notary Public were recovered from the possession
of the appellant, in his presence. However, he has stated that
due to the efforts of the Naib court, attached with his court, the
aforesaid seals were recovered from the possession of the
accused.
15. PW3 Const. Vijay Singh, in his crossexamination has
admitted that accused Ramesh Kumar met them under Police
Post, Tis Hazari and they went to the office of SDM, Sadar
Bazar, where accused himself produced two seals; one in the
name of SDM, Darya Ganj Sh. Raj Kumar and the second in
the name of Shri G.Sudhakar (PW1), SDM, Sadar Bazar. He
has specifically stated that nothing was recovered from the
possession of the accused, except these two stamps. He has
also shown his ignorance about the handing over of any
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 9 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
10
document by Hazari Lal to the SDM concerned. It is pertinent
to mention here that the seal of SDM Sadar Bazar, Sh. G.
Sudhakar was never recovered from the possession of the
appellant and was therefore, never seized or produced before
the Ld. Trial Court.
16. PW4 ASI Som Dev has also stated that he alongwith the
Naib Court Const. Satyavir and the complainant carrying the
forged affidavit, went downstairs, near Police Post, Tis Hazari,
Delhi, where the said person pointed towards a person,
wearing black pant and blue 'T' shirt and the said person was
searched by them and two stamps were recovered from his
pant pocket. He has also stated that one stamp was of SDM
Darya Ganj, Sh. Raj Kumar and the other stamp was of Notary
Public Sh. C.L.Dalal. He has also not stated that the seal of
SDM, Sadar Bazar was recovered from the appellant.
17. PW5 Const. Satyavir Singh has also deposed that on
05.07.1999, two persons came outside the court room and one
of them came inside the court room and told him that the other
person, who was standing outside the court room had forged
the signatures of SDM, Sadar Bazar and had faked his stamp
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 10 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
11
on some papers. Thereafter, the said person left the court
room. He has further stated that he came out of the court
room immediately and apprehended the person, standing
outside the court room and asked him to show the papers, he
was having with him, on which, he disclosed his name as
Hazari Lal son of Lala Ram, r/o E35, Mangolpuri, Delhi and he
was having an affidavit bearing the signatures of the SDM and
his seal impressions. Thereafter, he produced Hazari Lal
before the SDM concerned and also submitted the affidavit
before him and during inquiry by the SDM, the said Hazari Lal
told that the said affidavit was signed and attested by a person
and he can get him apprehended. Thereafter, as per
instructions of SDM, Sadar Bazar, he alongwith Const. Vijay
Singh and HC Som Dev went near Police Post Tis Hazari,
Delhi and Hazari Lal signaled towards a young person and
pointed that he has put the signatures of SDM on the affidavit
and seal impressions were also made by him on the affidavit.
Thereafter, the said person was apprehended and he
disclosed his name as Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Hari Singh,
r/o New Seelampur, Delhi and thereafter, they produced him
before the SDM Sadar Bazar and the accused was searched
before the SDM and during search, two seals, one seal of Sh.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 11 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
12
Raj Kumar, SDM, Darya Ganj and the other seal of Shri
D.S.Dalal, Notary Public were recovered from his pant pocket.
Thereafter, SDM instructed to hand over the seal to HC Som
Dev and SDM made a complaint and ordered for registration of
the FIR. During his crossexamination, he has admitted that
Hazari Lal had taken them to the accused and the accused
was apprehended at the instance of the said Hazari Lal. He
has further admitted that the documents in possession of
Hazari Lal were found bearing forged signatures and fake
stamp of SDM, Sadar Bazar and the same were recovered
from the possession of Hazari Lal. This witness has
categorically stated that the document Ex.PW.5/DX1 was
recovered from the said Hazari Lal and it was already signed
and stamped at that time.
18. The above testimonies of these prosecution witnesses
clearly indicate that there are material contradictions in their
depositions, regarding the manner of apprehension of the
accused, as well as about the place of apprehension of the
accused. Furthermore, no seal or stamp of SDM, Sadar Bazar
was ever recovered from the possession of the accused. It is
further observed that the affidavit / undertaking Ex.PW5/DX1
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 12 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
13
was also not recovered from the possession of the accused,
when he was allegedly searched by the aforesaid three
witnesses.
19. Perusal of the record further shows that during the trial,
Shri Hazari Lal could not be examined, as the said Hazari Lal
was reported to have already expired. It is further observed
that there are also material contradictions in the depositions of
the complainant Shri G.Sudhakar (PW1), the then SDM,
Sadar Bazar; PW3 Const. Vijay Singh; PW4 ASI Som Dev;
and PW5 Const. Satyavir Singh, regarding the recovery of the
forged / undertaking Ex.PW.5/DX1. From their testimonies, it
is clear that this document was never recovered from the
possession of the accused and it was always in possession of
Hazari Lal (since deceased).
20. Perusal of the record further shows that during the
investigations, the IO SI Radhey Lal had seized the alleged
seals vide seizure memo, dated 05.07.1999 and during the
investigations, he also obtained the specimen writings and
signature of appellant Ramesh Kumar son of Late Shri Hari
Ram on five separate white sheets, marked as S1 to S5. It is
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 13 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
14
pertinent to mention here that the IO SI Radhey Lal has asked
the accused Ramesh Kumar, to give these specimen by
signing as SDM Sadar Bazar, G.Sudhakar. These specimen
sheets S1 to S5 bear the specimen of the signatures, which
the appellant Ramesh Kumar was directed to sign like the
signatures of G.Sudhakar. The specimen of his writing was
also taken on these sheets for the words, "sworn before me",
which the SDM G.Sudhakar used to put on the affidavits /
undertakings and other documents, while attesting these
documents. These specimen writings and signatures
alongwith the admitted specimen signatures of Shri
G.Sudhakar (PW1), his official seal impressions and the
original undertaking Ex.PW.5/DX1 were sent to FSL, for
expert opinion.
21. During the trial, the FSL report was admitted by the
appellant and the Ld. Trial Court had also recorded his
statement, in this regard, on 18.09.2013. The FSL report
bearing No. AH87/99/4019, dated 9/121199 has been
admitted on record, as Ex.P1.
22. Perusal of the FSL report Ex.P1 shows that the Deputy
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 14 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
15
Government Examiner has given a one page report and a one
page 'opinion', but, no details have been mentioned in the
'opinion' to show as to how the Deputy Government Examiner
has arrived at his opinion that the specimen handwriting and
signatures had matched with the questioned writings and the
stamp / seal. The opinion of the Deputy Government
Examiner is reproduced below as under :
OPINION
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NORTH DISTRICT,
DELHI.
(Subzimandi P.S. Fir No. 231/99)
The documents of this case have been carefully and
thoroughly examined.
2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed
signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 did not write the red
enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q1.
3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings
stamped and marked S1 to S5 also wrote the red enclosed writing
similarly stamped and marked Q1.
4. The stamp impressions marked Q2 and Q4 do not
tally with the sample stamp impressions marked A6 to A8.
5. The stamp impression marked Q3 does not tally
with the sample stamp impressions marked A5 to A7.
Sd/
( D.D.Goel ) M.Sc.,
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.
Sd/
( Amar Singh ) M.Sc.,
Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.
Hyderabad
Dated the 9 November, 1999
th
.
18 Kartika, 1921.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 15 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 16
23. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Magan Bihari Lal vs. The State of Punjab", reported as, "AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1091", as under : "7. ............... 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 v. Md. 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 v. Subosh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, it 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 that evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 16 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 17 State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326 and if 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. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and Americal Courts. Vide Gurbey v. Longlands, (1822) 5 B & Ald 330 and Matter of Alfred Foster's Will, 34 Mich 21. The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case: "Every one knows who very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence is a necessary evil." We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.
(emphasis supplied by me)
24. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, "State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh And Other", reported as "(1992) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700", as under :
29. It is well settled that evidence regarding the identity of the author of any document can be Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 17 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 18 tendered (i) by examining the person who is conversant and familiar with the handwriting of such person or (ii) through the testimony of an expert who is qualified and competent to make a comparison of the disputed writing and the admitted writing on a scientific basis and (iii) by the court comparing the disputed document with the admitted one. In the present case the prosecution has resorted to the second mode by relying on the opinion evidence of the handwriting expert PW120. But since the science of identification of handwriting by comparison is not an infallible one, prudence demands that before acting on such opinion the court should be fully satisfied about the authorship of the admitted writings which is made the sole basis for comparison and the court should also be fully satisfied about the competence and credibility of the handwriting expert. It is indeed true that by nature and habit, over a period of time, each individual develops certain traits which give a distinct character to his writings making it possible to identify the author but it must at the same time be realised that since handwriting experts are generally engaged by one of the contesting parties they, consciously or unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of an opinion which is helpful to the party engaging him. That is why we come across cases of conflicting opinions given by two handwriting experts engaged by opposite parties. It is, therefore, necessary to exercise extra care and caution in evaluating their opinion before accepting the same. So courts have as a rule of prudence refused to place implicit faith on the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. Normally courts have considered it dangerous to base a conviction solely on the testimony of a handwriting expert because such evidence is not Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 18 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 19 regarded as conclusive. Since such opinion evidence cannot take the place of substantive evidence, courts have, as a rule of prudence, looked for corroboration before acting on such evidence. True it is, there is no rule of law that the evidence of a handwriting expert cannot be acted upon unless substantially corroborated but courts have been slow in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence, without more, because of the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility. There is no absolute rule of law or even of prudence which has ripened into a rule of law that in no case can the court base its findings solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but the imperfect and frail nature of the science of identification of the author by comparison of his admitted handwriting with the disputed ones has placed a heavy responsibility on the courts to exercise extra care and caution before acting on such opinion. Before a court can place reliance on the opinion of an expert, it must be shown that he has not betrayed any bias and the reasons on which he has based his opinion are convincing and satisfactory. It is for this reason that the courts are wary to act solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert; that, however, does not mean that even if there exist numerous striking pecularities and mannerisms which stand out to identify the writer, the court will not act on the expert's evidence. In the end it all depends on the character of the evidence of the expert and the facts and circumstances of each case.
Ram Narain v. State of U.P.
30. In this Court was called upon to consider whether a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the handwriting expert could be sustained. This Court held : (SCC p.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 19 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 20 90 para 6) " It is no doubt true that the opinion of handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution. But this opinion evidence, which is relevant, may be worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence relating to the document in question supporting the view expressed by the expert."
A similar view was expressed in the case of Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma in the following words : (SCC p.53, para 26) "The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a finger print expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert".
In Murari Lal v. State of M.P. this Court was once again called upon to examine whether the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert needs to be substantially corroborated before it can be acted upon to base a conviction. Dealing with this oft repeated submission this Court pointed out : (SCC pp.70809 para 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. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 20 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 21 the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (Section 3) tells us that 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the Evidence Act lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. 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." After examining the caselaw this Court proceeded to add : (SCC p. 711, para 11)) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 21 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 22 "We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinionevidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight."
What emerges from the caselaw referred to above is that a handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence is recognised as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act and has not been equated to the class of evidence of an accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of fingerprints; courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 22 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 23 application regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the court has to decide in each case on its own merits what eight it should attach to the opinion of the expert.
(emphasis supplied by me).
25. It has been also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, "Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank & Ors.", reported as "(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583", as under :
13. It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and
73. Both under Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon.
Irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with the disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 75 are complementary to each other. Evidence of the handwriting expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to decide whether to accept such an Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 23 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 24 uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when an expert's evidence is not there, the court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. (See Murari Lal v. State of M.P.).
(emphasis supplied by me)
26. Furthermore, as per the Provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the reports of certain government scientific experts, as mentioned under Section 293 (4) Cr.P.C., may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C., speaks about the admissibility of the reports, submitted by the government scientific experts, but, the same does not speak anything about the mode of proof of such reports. However, the reports submitted by any of the six officers, who are mentioned in Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., can be accepted as a valid evidence, without examining the author thereof, held in case of "Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Fertiliser Inspectorcum Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular)", reported as "(1997) 2 Crimes 648 (AP)".
27. In the present case also, the report Ex.P1, submitted by the handwriting expert, was prepared by Shri M.R.Singh, M.Sc., Deputy Government Examiner of the questioned Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 24 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 25 documents and Shri D.D.Goel, M.Sc., Government Examiner of the questioned documents. But, the designations of none of these two government officers find mention in Section 293(4) Cr.P.C. and none of these officers have been examined during the trial.
28. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, "Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd.", reported as "1995 (34) DRJ 86"
[1995 II AD (Delhi) 189], as under :
"6. Let me now look at the law. Any document filed by either party passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. These are : First stage; when the documents are filed by either party in the Court; these documents though on file, do not become part of the judicial record; Second stage; when the documents are tendered or produced in evidence by a party and the Court admits the documents in evidence. A document admitted in evidence becomes a part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidence;
Third stage; the documents which are held 'proved, not proved or disproved' when the Court is called upon to apply its judicial mind by reference to Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Usually this stage arrives at the final hearing of the suit or proceeding.
**** **** **** **** ****
8. I am firmly of the opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof.
**** **** **** **** ****
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 25 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
26
9. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sait Taraji Khimchand VS. Yelamarti Satyam (AIR 1971 SC 1865) is : The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.
**** **** **** **** ****
13. Admission of a document in evidence is not to be confused with proof of a document.
14. When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box' it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each time a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit.
15. The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was the document before the witness when it was deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering while was the document to which the witness was referring to which deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 26 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 27 the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit.
16. This makes the position of law clear. Any practise contrary to the abovesaid statement of law has no sanctity and cannot be permitted to prevail.
(emphasis supplied by me)
29. Perusal of the record further shows that in the present case also, the conviction of the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC has been based by the Ld. Trial Court, solely, on the basis of this report of the handwriting expert, Ex.P1. But, in the considered opinion of this court, the same is not sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
In the FSL report Ex.P1, no reasons have been given by the Deputy Government Examiner, to indicate as to how he arrived at his opinion, as given in this report. Since no reasons have been given by the handwriting expert, in his 'opinion' of report Ex.P1 and the author of this report has not been examined by the Ld. Trial Court, during the trial, this court has deemed it appropriate to undertake an exercise, of its' own, to compare the questioned writings and signatures with the specimen writings and signatures, marked S1 to S5, under the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. These handwritings and signatures have been compared by me, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 27 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 28 minutely with naked eyes, as well as with the aid of a magnifying glass. When these questioned specimen writings and signatures are compared, with the specimen handwritings and signatures by the accused, with a magnifying glass, it is observed conclusively that none of the specimen signatures and writings, marked S1 to S5 are matching with the questioned signatures and writings marked, 'Q1'. Therefore, in the absence of any reasons by the handwriting expert for his opinion, in the report Ex.P1, I am not inclined to accept the said report as correct or authentic. Therefore, no conviction can be based solely on this report and the prosecution case requires corroboration from the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant, in the present case.
30. Since the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses are also lacking corroboration, due to material contradictions, as discussed earlier, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the offence, under Section 465 IPC cannot be sustained, in the present case. Therefore, the impugned judgment, dated 30.09.2015 and the 'orderon sentence', dated 07.12.2015 are hereby setaside and the Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 28 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 29 appellant is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. The present appeal is disposed off accordingly.
31. A copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned court, for information and necessary compliance.
The record of the present appeal be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on this 4 day of June, 2016 th BRIJESH KR. GARG SPECIAL JUDGE CBI01 CENTRAL DISTRICT/DELHI Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (CA 01/16) Page 29 of 29 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi