Delhi District Court
Rahim Dad Khan vs State on 18 April, 2024
DLST010099242021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 132/2021 RBT (153/22)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rahim Dad Khan
S/o Naseeb Khan
R/o 189, Hauz Rani,
New Delhi-17.
................Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
................ Respondent
Instituted on :17.12.2021
Reserved on :28.02.2024
Pronounced on :18.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal U/s 374 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of appellant Rahim Dad Khan against the Judgment dated 07.04.2021 and Order on Sentence dated 03.12.2021 passed by Ld. MM-02, South, Saket in case titled as 'State Vs. Rahim Dad Khan' pertaining to FIR No. 848/2002, PS Malviya Nagar whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offence U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC and was sentenced accordingly.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 1 / 21An FIR no. 848/02 was lodged at PS Malviya Nagar on 27.09.2002 against the appellant for the offences U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC on the basis of written complaint of Sh. Lal Mohammad. After registration of FIR and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC before Ld. Magistrate on 24.04.2009. Cognizance was taken on the same day. Charge was framed against him for those offences on 07.03.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.1 During course of trial, appellant admitted copy of judgment dated 23.04.2003 passed in CS No. 165/2000 decided by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) as Ex. X1, copy of judgment dated 23.03.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 61/23.08.2003 by Ld. ADJ, Gurgaon as Ex.X2 and certified copy of Petition U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in case No. 103/01 titled as Rahim Dad Khan Vs. Lal Mohd. filed in the Court of Ld. JMIC, Nuh alongwith documents filed therein as Ex.X3 (colly) vide his statement dated 31.08.2017 U/s 294 Cr.P.C. Prosecution has examined following 15 witnesses in support of its case:-
S. Name of Witness Documents proved Role No. Seizure memo of complaint Son of
1. PW-1 Mohd. Ilyas case no. 103/17 filed u/s Complainant 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW1/A. Seizure memo of letter dated Public Health PW-2 Sh. S.K. 07.04.2003 No. 128-
2. Inspector at the Sharma 08.04.2003 (colly running into relevant time 13 pages) as Ex.PW2/A
3. PW-3 Sh. Shyam Report regarding destroying LDC from Singh Form No. 6,7,8 and 8-A by the Election Office, CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 2 / 21 ERO as Ex.PW3/A Malviya Nagar Seizure memo of certified Retired Head PW-4 Sh.Mange
4. copy of Form No. 8 as Clerk Ram Ex.PW4/A Superintendent A&C (Assessment and Collection) Seizure memo of original PW-5 Sh. Sunrise Department,
5. assessment file as Ex.PW5/A Singh Civic Center, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-02 Reply U/s 91 and 160 Cr.P.C.
Superintendent,
as Ex.PW6/A and entry of
PW- 6 Sh. Arvind Education
6. master register regarding
Chopra Department,
registration number of ration
District South
card no. 2991 as Ex.PW6/B
Letter bearing no.
PW-7 Sh. R.K. FSO/C/50/216/504 of Master
7. FSO, Circle 50
Kanojia Register of Ration Card of Lal
Mohammad as Ex. PW7/A
Food and
Report of Ration card bearing
Supply Officer
no. 311021 and 32181as
PW-8 Sh. P.R. at Circle 8,
8. Ex.PW8/A and letter dated
Kaushik Sheikh Sarai at
25.06.2002 received from SI
the relevant
Naresh as Ex.PW8/B
time
FIR as Ex.PW9/A and Duty Officer at
PW-9 ASI Ram
9. endorsement on Rukka as PS Malviya
Het
Ex.PW9/B Nagar
PW-10 Insp. Investigating
10. -
Naresh Solanki Officer
11. PW-11 Sh. S.L. - He was Food
Gambhir and Supply
Officer at
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 3 / 21
Circle-8 at the
relevant time
PW-12 Retired SI
12. - Second IO
Dharampal
Arrest memo of appellant as
Ex.PW13/A, his personal
search memo as Ex.PW13/B,
PW-13 Insp. notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to MCD
13. Fourth IO
Praveen Kumar House Tax Department as
Ex.PW13/M and reply
received thereto as
Ex.PW13/N
PW-14 ACP
14. - Third IO
Pankaj Singh
Report qua examination of
specimen and questioned
signatures as Ex.PW15/A, He was Senior
specimen signatures as Scientific
PW-15 Sh. Devak
15. Ex.PW15/B(colly), questioned Officer in FSL, Ram signatures as Delhi at the Ex.PW15/C(colly) and relevant time forwarding letter signed by Director, FSL as Ex.PW15/D
3. After recording of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, statement of appellant U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.01.2018 wherein he pleaded innocence. It was stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the case as PW-1 wanted to grab his property.
4. The appellant chose to lead defence evidence in his favour. He examined Sh. Desh Raj, Zonal Revenue Officer from Delhi Jail Board as DW1, Sh. Mohd. Ali as DW2, Sh. Shafiq Ahmed as DW4, Sh. Abdul Salam as DW5 and himself as DW6. All the defence witnesses were duly CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 4 / 21 cross-examined by Ld. APP for State.
5. Thereafter, arguments were heard from both the sides by Ld. Magistrate and vide judgment dated 07.04.2021, appellant herein was convicted for the offences U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC. Vide Order on Sentence dated 03.12.2021, he was sentenced as under:-
(i) For the offence U/s 419 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year;
(ii) For the offence U/s 420 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year;
(iii) For the offence U/s 468 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year;
(iv) For the offence U/s 471 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year.
6. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant U/s 357(3) Cr.PC, in default thereof, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. That Judgment and Order on Sentence is being challenged in these proceedings.
7. Arguments heard.
8. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that Ld. Trial Court has committed an error by convicted him as material on record was not properly appreciated. It has been argued that as per the case of prosecution, the appellant has forged signatures of Sh. Lal Mohammad on several documents so as to change the name of his father from Naseeb Khan to Chander Khan. It has been submitted that the name of father of Sh. Lal CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 5 / 21 Mohd. was Chander Khan and not Naseeb Khan. It has been submitted that Sh. Lal Mohd. had come alongwith his mother when the father of the appellant had married her after his first marriage with another lady. It has been submitted that Sh. Lal Mohd. was wrongly claiming himself as son of Sh. Naseeb Khan in an attempt to usurp the properties of Sh. Naseeb Khan. It has been submitted that the agricultural land was wrongly mutated in favour of complaint in the year 1999 and a civil suit for declaration was filed by appellant in the year 2000. It has been submitted that present FIR was registered as a counter blast to that. It has been submitted that the appellant had succeeded in the civil suit and appeal filed thereto was also dismissed by Ld. ADJ. It has been submitted that there were several documents on record prior to the year 2000 clearly showing that the name of father of Sh. Lal Mohd. was recorded therein as Chander Khan. It has been submitted that complainant was not examined by the prosecution during trial as he had expired by then. It has been submitted that PW-1 Mohd. Ilyas (son of complainant) was examined during trial who stated that he can identify the signature of his father Sh. Lal Mohd. but it is not clear as to which signature he was referring to. It has been submitted that the basis of conviction of the appellant by Ld. Trial Court is the opinion of hand writing expert however, same was not proper as the alleged admitted signature of Sh. Lal Mohd. referred to as AI & A2 in the FSL report were not identified by anyone during trial as actually belonging to him. It has been submitted that IO took the handwriting/signature samples of the appellant without any application before Ld. Trial Court and same was accordingly bad in law. It has been submitted that no eye witness/any other public witness was examined to prove the commission of alleged offence by the appellant. It has been submitted that it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 6 / 21 judgments that opinion of hand writing expert was a weak piece of evidence and that it was not safe to convict a person solely on the basis of such an opinion. Prayer has been made for setting-aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal of appellant.
9. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and that same has been passed after properly appreciating the material on record. He has prayed for dismissal of appeal.
10. Ld. Counsel for complainant who is also participating in the present proceedings argued that the question before Ld. Trial Court was not as to whether Sh. Lal Mohd. was son of Sh. Naseeb Khan or Sh. Chander Khan. It has been submitted that appellant has been convicted for forging the signatures of Sh. Lal Mohd. which has been duly proved by way of opinion of handwriting expert. It has been submitted that the signature of Sh. Lal Mohd. on the complaint to DCP (South) has been duly identified by PW-1 Mohd. Ilyas in his examination-in-chief. It has been submitted that the sample signatures of appellant taken by IO have not been denied by him during trial. Prayer has been made for dismissal of appeal.
11. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
12. Record shows that appellant herein was convicted by Ld. Trial Court for the offences U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC. Relevant portion of impugned judgment is being quoted below for ready reference:-
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 7 / 21"34. Whereas the prosecution could successfully establish that the document Ex. 5,6 and 8 have been forged and the accused impersonated him as Lal Mohd to obtain documents from the concerned authority. The allegations are duly corroborated by direct and circumstantial evidence as well as the report of the handwriting expert which makes the nature of evidence as definite and clinching in nature and also connects the accused with the questioned documents. Furthermore even from the cross examination it is clear that the accused did not cross examine the handwriting expert over his findings and consequently accused has failed to rebut the finding recorded under the report of handwriting expert.
35. Moreover the accused could not shake the testimony of the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses during the cross examination. Accused mainly tried to prove with the mode of cross examination that he is legal heir of Nasib Khan, which is not subject matter to be decided by this Court. The accused failed to discard the version of the prosecution whereas the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, thus accused is convicted U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC."
13. The crux of the case of prosecution against the appellant is that he had prepared several documents in the name of Sh. Lal Mohd. wherein he had also forged his signatures. The motive behind doing so has been mentioned as he wanted to show that Sh. Lal Mohd. was son of Sh. Chander Khan and nor Sh. Naseeb Khan so that appellant was able to lay his claim on all the properties belonging to his father Sh. Naseeb Khan. As per the written complaint by Sh. Lal Mohd. to DCP (South) which was received in PS Malviya Nagar on 27.06.2002 on the basis of which present FIR was CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 8 / 21 registered, the appellant was trying his level best to create confusion regarding actual name of father of complainant and for that reason, appellant had filed a frivolous suit for declaration before Ld. Civil Judge at Nuh. It has been mentioned therein that the appellant had filed several forged and fabricated documents in that case in support of his prayer whereupon he made inquiries from various govt. departments and came to know that appellant had approached various authorities and made frivolous applications with forged signatures of the complainant to prove that the name of his father was Chander Khan and not Naseem Khan (it appears that the name has been wrongly mentioned as Naseem Khan instead of Naseeb Khan) in order to misappropriate the properties in the name of / belonging to complainant. Three forged documents filed by the appellant before Ld. Court at Nuh were specified therein. One was an affidavit allegedly bearing forged signature of complainant, another one was a forged ration card issued in the year 2000 and third document was an undated letter with forged signature of the complainant addressed to House Tax Department, MCD, Mehrauli. It has further been mentioned therein that name of his father was also changed to Chander Khan in the Voter's list which as per the concerned officials was done on an application moved by the appellant under his own signatures. After registration of FIR, investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, sample signatures of the appellant were taken on 8 sheets (Ex.PW-15/B Colly) by IO/SI Praveen Kumar on 15.11.2008. First 4 sheets marked as 'S-1' were bearing specimen signatures of the appellant as Rahim Dad Khan whereas next 4 sheets marked as 'S-2' were bearing his specimen signatures as Lal Mohd. Signatures of complainant on the initial complaint made to DCP (South) and subsequent complaint dated 26.08.2002 to SHO PS Malviya Nagar were considered as admitted signatures of Sh. Lal Mohd.
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 9 / 21Those signatures (admitted signatures of the complainant and specimen signatures of the appellant on 8 sheets) alongwith following documents were sent to FSL for expert's opinion:-
(a) a letter addressed to Assistant Assessor Collector, MCD House tax Dept., Mehrauli by Sh. Lal Mohd (allegedly containing signature of complainant at point Q1);
(b) a letter addressed to Assistant Assessor Collector, Mehrauli Sub-Zone (in Hindi) by Sh. Lal Mohd (allegedly containing signature of complainant at point Q2);
(c) letters addressed to Assistant Assessor & Collector, House Tax Department, MCD, Mehrauli by Sh. Lal Mohd. (allegedly containing forged signatures of complainant at point Q3 & Q4);
(d) letter addressed to The Deputy Assessor & Collector, Mehrauli, S-
Zone by the appellant (allegedly containing signature of appellant at point Q5);
(e) an affidavit dated 07.03.2001 by Sh. Lal Mohd. (allegedly containing forged signatures of complainant at point Q6 and Q6/1);
(f) FORM-8 pertaining to application for objection to particulars entered in Electoral Roll Officer dated 06.12.2001 (allegedly containing signatures of appellant at point Q7, Q8 & Q9 ).
14. On comparison of admitted signatures of Sh. Lal Mohd. with his disputed signatures, it was opined by handwriting expert Sh. Devak Ram in his report no. FSL2008/D-4418 dated 23.02.2009 (Ex.PW-15/A) that the signatures marked Q3, Q4, Q6 and Q6/1 were not done by Sh. Lal Mohd whereas signatures marked Q1 and Q2 were done by him. It was also opined that appellant had done the signatures marked Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q6/1 and Q9.
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 10 / 21Lastly, it was opined that it was not possible to give any opinion qua signatures marked Q7 and Q8 in the absence of admitted signatures of contemporary period of person concerned.
15. It is to be noted here that complainant had expired during the course of investigation. So, he could not be examined as a witness during trial instead his son Sh. Mohd. Ilyas was examined as PW-1. In his initial complaint to police Ex.PW-1/A itself, the complainant had written that he was an aged person and was unable to pursue the complaint so he authorized his son Mohd. Ilyas to pursue the same. PW-1 Mohd. Ilyas in his testimony before Ld. Trial Court stated that he came to know about the ill motive of appellant when he reached at MCD Office for making death certificate of his father namely Sh. Lal Mohd. who died in the year 2003. He stated that an application was given by appellant for changing the name of his grandfather from Naseeb Khand to Chander Khan. He also stated that in the civil suit for declaration filed by the appellant in Nuh District Court in the year 2000, appellant had produced one water connection bill wherein there was forgery as the name of Nasib Khan was replaced by Chander Khan. He similarly stated that in some bills of MCD House Tax Dept., the name of his grandfather Nasib Khan was changed to Chander Khan. He also stated that a forged affidavit was filed by the appellant to change the name of his grandfather by impersonating himself as Sh. Lal Mohd. He also stated about other documents i.e., forged ration card generated in the year 2000 bearing the name of Chander Khan in place of Nasib Khan and voting list in which the name of his grandfather was again changed to Chander Khan which he observed in the year 2002. He stated that in the SDM Office, he saw a Form No. 8 having been filled up by the appellant and having signed the same for CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 11 / 21 changing the name of his grandfather. In last paragraph of his testimony, PW-1 stated that his father had given complaint to PS Malviyar Nagar in this regard. He also stated that on 27.08.2002. a complaint was given to SHO PS Malviyar Nagar by his father which was on judicial record. Thereafter, it is mentioned that the signature of Sh. Lal Mohd. is shown to the witness and he has correctly identified the same.
16. It appears from the aforementioned testimony of PW-1 that he has only deposed about the complaint dated 26.08.2002 (bearing initial of SHO, PS Malviya Nagar with the date 27.08.2002) which was given to SHO PS Malviyar Nagar and by same analogy was able to identify the signature of his father on the said complaint. He has nowhere mentioned anything about the initial complaint addressed to DCP (South) on the basis of which present case was registered and has also not stated anywhere about the signature of his father on the said complaint. It may be an inadvertent mistake however, the fact remains that initial complaint to DCP (South) and signature of complainant on the same remains unproved. No other witness has been examined to prove the signature of complainant on the said complaint. PW-9 ASI Ram Het has proved only his endorsement on the initial complaint of the complainant Sh. Lal Mohd. and not the signature of complainant. It is not even the case of prosecution that complainant had signed the said complaint before him.
17. Testimonies of witnesses on record shows that none of the witnesses had seen the appellant doing the alleged forged signatures of Sh. Lal Mohd. There is no eye witness to the alleged forgery done by him. It appears that appellant has been convicted only on the basis of FSL report (Ex. PW-15/A).
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 12 / 21Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the FSL report on several counts including on the aspect that sample signatures of the appellant were taken by IO without moving an application before Ld. Magistrate so same were bad in law and FSL report should be discarded on this count alone. Section 311A Cr.P.C. is material on this aspect which provides as under:-
"[311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.- If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceedings.] "
18. As is clear from above, a Magistrate can direct the accused to give specimen signatures/handwriting during investigation only if said accused was at sometime arrested in connection with such investigation. Admittedly, by the date when sample signatures from appellant were taken by IO on 15.11.2008, he was not arrested in this case probably because the investigating agency itself was not sure as to whether any forgery was committed by him. So, the question of direction of Ld Magistrate U/s 311A Cr.P.C. qua taking sample signatures of appellant does not arise. It appears that there is no statutory provision qua direction from Court for taking sample handwriting /signature of an accused during investigation when such an accused has not been arrested till that time. On this aspect, this Court is CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 13 / 21 guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 804/2001 dated 25.05.2012 wherein following observations were made:-
31. We answer the reference as follows:-
(i) Handwriting and signature are not measurements as defined under clause (a) of Section 2 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Section 4 and Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 will not apply to a handwriting sample or a sample signature. Thus, an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, when Act No.25 of 2005 was notified, inter-alia, inserting Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even a Magistrate could not direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting samples. In cases where Magistrates have directed so, the evidence was held to be inadmissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Babu Mishra‟s case (supra).
According to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only the Court concerned can direct a person appearing before it to submit samples of his handwriting and/or signature for purposes of comparison."
19. Perusal of the above gives an impression that even after insertion of Section 311A Cr.P.C. which came into effect on 23.06.2006, an investigating officer cannot obtain sample handwriting /signatures from a person accused of having committed an offence during investigation except as per the procedure as prescribed U/s 311A Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar & CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 14 / 21 Anr (Supra) was distinguished by another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rekha Sharma Vs. CBI, Crl. Appeal No. 124/2013 wherein it was held as under:-
"448. The decision in Sapan Haldar (supra) again has considered the question whether handwriting and signature specimens are obtainable under Section 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Court observed that since both handwriting and signature of a person are not a mark of identification, the same cannot be "measurement"
as defined under Section 2(a) of the Identification of Prisoners Act. However, the very next line which declares that an investigating officer, during investigation, cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence is in teeth with the view adopted by the Supreme Court in Navjot Sandhu (supra) and Dara Singh (supra).
449. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the report of the expert and analysis of handwriting and signature specimens of the accused persons cannot be rendered inadmissible on the ground that it was obtained in violation of prescribed procedure."
20. So, it appears that IO was not legally required to obtain direction of Ld. Magistrate for taking sample signatures from the appellant for sending the same to FSL for expert's opinion. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the appellant has nowhere denied that the sample signatures as contained in the 8 sheets collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-15/B were not done by him. During cross-examination of IO/Insp. Praveen Kumar as PW-13, he was given suggestion to the effect that he had obtained the specimen signatures of the appellant forcibly after threatening him which was denied by him.
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 15 / 21Similarly, in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.,the appellant on being put several documents including specimen signatures Ex.PW-15/B (colly) stated that it was matter of record however he did not commit any offence. In these circumstances, it was not open for him to dispute the sample signatures before this Court in appeal.
21. Having said that, it is to be noted that the opinion of handwriting expert's is a weak type of evidence. It is to be seen that an expert's evidence pertaining to handwriting is merely an opinion and same cannot take place of substantive evidence. Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee Civil Appeal No. 295/1960 wherein it was held as under:-
"Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly in consistent with it."
22. Reliance is also place on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 wherein on the aspect of value to be attached to the opinion of handwriting expert, it was 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 CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 16 / 21 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 that the opinion of 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 hs almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra Vs. 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 in 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 substantiate evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 17 / 21 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".
23. As mentioned earlier, the case of prosecution is that by way of forging signatures of Sh. Lal Mohd., appellant was trying to manipulate the documents/record by changing the name of his father as Chander Khan instead of Naseeb Khan so that he alone can lay his claim on all the properties belonging to Sh. Naseeb Khan. It is to be noted that during testimony of DW-1, Sh. Desh Raj, Zonal Revenue Officer, Jal Board, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, he placed on record computerized copies of water charges bills for the period 03.03.2012 to 12.03.2018 and legacy data for the period 11.07.1987 to 03.03.2012 of the H. No. 189, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in the name of the complainant. Perusal of those documents shows that the name of father of complainant has been mentioned therein as Chander Khan instead of Naseeb Khan. Apart from those documents, a document Ex.DW-1/F (OSR) was also filed by said witness before the Court which was a photocopy of water connection allotment register. As per that document, water connection was issued in the name of complainant on 27.02.1981 and name of his father has been recorded as Chander Khan in the same. Appellant was given a suggestion in his cross- examination by Ld. APP for State to the effect that said water connection CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 18 / 21 was obtained by him in the name of Sh. Lal Mohd. S/o Sh. Chander Khan at house bearing no. 189, Hauz Rani, Delhi through false and fabricated document which was denied by him. There is nothing on record to suggest that said connection was not so obtained by the complainant Sh. Lal Mohd. Prosecution has failed to explain as to what was the need for the appellant to commit alleged forgery merely to change the name of father of complainant when the name of his father was already mentioned as Chander Khan in several documents including Ex.PW1/F (OSR).
24. Further, it is to be noted that as per the case of prosecution, appellant had submitted a Form-8 to Election Commission Officials for correction in the name of father of complainant from Naseeb Khan to Chander Khan. During cross-examination of PW-4 Sh. Mange Ram who had handed over that document to IO during investigation, he stated that only a person whose name is mentioned in the electoral roll can apply for Form No. 8. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that said testimony was sufficient to show that the appellant had impersonated himself as complainant before the officials of Election Commission for getting the name of his father changed from Naseeb Khan to Chander Khan. Perusal of Form-8 in original on record shows that same is not bearing any signature or thumb impression of the complainant. There are three signatures on this document and same were marked as Q7, Q8 & Q9 for eliciting opinion of handwriting expert. As per the FSL report (Ex.PW-15/A), no opinion could be given qua the signatures marked Q7 & Q8 whereas the signature marked Q9 was opined as having done by the appellant. Just above the signature marked Q9, full particulars of the appellant have been mentioned and as per prosecution, the signature marked Q9 is pertaining to appellant as Rahim Dad Khan and not as Lal CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 19 / 21 Mohd. In these circumstances, it is not clear as to how the appellant can be stated as having impersonated the complainant before the officials concerned when he had put his entire particulars including name and had also signed said document as Rahim Dad Khan. In case, appellant was having any intention to impersonate the complainant, he could have done so by signing as Lal Mohd. and by omitting to give his own particulars. The fact that Form-8 is not bearing signature of complainant rather it is bearing signature of Rahim Dad Khan only, creates a doubt on the story of prosecution that the appellant had changed the name of father of complainant in the electoral roll by committing forgery and impersonation. It is also not clear as to how name of father of complainant could have been changed in the electoral roll on the basis of such a form when same was not even bearing signature/ thumb impression of the concerned individual.
25. There is one more point worth consideration. As per the case of prosecution, the documents allegedly bearing forged signatures of complainant which as per the FSL report (Ex.PW15/A) were done by the appellant, were filed by appellant in the civil suit titled as Rahid Dad Vs. Lal Mohd. civil suit no.165/2000 instituted before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, Haryana. The judgment of Ld. Trial Court dated 23.07.2003 also indicates that certain documents in original were filed by the appellant in support of his case to which objection was taken from the side of complainant to the effect that those documents were falsely created by the appellant during the pendency of suit with ulterior motive. As per PW- 13/Inspector Praveen Kumar, he had collected the file pertaining to property tax of H.No.186, Hauz Rani from the MCD property tax office on 26.09.2008 vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. PW-5 Sh. Sunrise Singh had also CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 20 / 21 deposed to the same effect. It is not clear as to how the investigating agency was able to procure those documents allegedly containing forged signatures of the complainant from the MCD property tax office when the same were filed by the appellant before Ld. Trial Court at Nuh in the civil suit for declaration. Interestingly, PW-1 Mohd. Ilyas was also not shown the documents allegedly containing forged signatures of his father. Those documents were not seized in his presence. In these circumstances, a doubt remains as to whether the documents so sent to FSL for expert opinion were same documents which were so filed by the appellant in the civil suit before Ld. Trial Court at Nuh.
26. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there are several loopholes in the case of prosecution and that in view of the same, it was not proper for Ld. Trial Court to convict the appellant only on the basis of handwriting expert's opinion which admittedly was a weak type of evidence. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Appeal is accordingly allowed and appellant Rahim Dad Khan stands acquitted for all the offences. Bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. has been furnished. Accepted hereby for six months.
Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta)
Court on 18th April, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-06
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 21 / 21