Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xli) From A.1, Ex.P.96 specimen signature was taken and from A.9, Ex.P.97 specimen signature and handwritings were taken. The proceedings for taking the above specimen signatures is Ex.P.98. At the request of the Investigating Officer, the footprint of A.9 was taken under Ex.P.99, as per the proceedings in Ex.P.100.

xlii) Thiru R.Srinivasan-P.W.42 Handwriting Expert, who was then working as Assistant Director in the Forensic Department, at the request of the Investigating Officer, examined the signatures of A.2 with the signatures available in the cheque-Ex.P.24 as well as his signature in Ex.P.16. He has also examined the signatures available in Exs.P.2 1,P.26, P.29 with the signature of A.4 obtained in the Court. The comparison revealed that A.2 signed in the cheque and A.4 signed in the documents in question (lodge records), for which he has given his opinion under Ex.P.59. xliii) Thiru Ranjit Check, who has been examined as P.W.50, examined the footprints of A.9 to A.11, with the impressions available in the chappal-M.O.7, recovered from the scene of crime, which revealed that the chappal, recovered from the scene of crime, must be that of Pounraj-A.10, for which he has submitted the report-Ex.P.75, assigning reasons. It also further revealed that the footprint impression found in the chappal do not belong to other two accused viz. A.9 and A.11. At the request of the Investigating Officer, Material Objects recovered were sent to chemical examination, through Court, reports were received.

47. The eye-witnesses have accounted, that one of the assailants, while taking heels from the scene of crime, had left his pair of chappal. It is the case of the prosecution that chappal (M.O.7) belong to Pavunraj-A.10, as revealed by the investigation. To substantiate the same, aid is sought, from the oral evidence of P.Ws.50 and 55 and the report of the Footprint Expert, which is exhibited as Ex.P.73. At the request of the Investigating Officer, P.W.55-the then Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, obtained the footprints of Pavunraj @ Pavun-A.10 under Ex.P.87, Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Balan-A.11 under Ex.P.8 8, and that of Kumar-A.9 under Ex.P.99. The corresponding proceedings are marked as Exs.P.89 and 100. The above footprints were compared by P.W.50, with the footprints or impressions available in M.O.7 chappal for left foot as well as right foot. As seen from Ex.P.73 and as spoken to by P.W.50, left foot impression on the insole of the leather chappal was marked as Item No.3 and the right footprint on the insole of the leather chappal was marked as Item No.4. While comparing these two foot impressions, on the insoles of left and right chappal, the expert had marked the left and right leg palm prints of Pavunraj-A.10 as Item Nos.5 and 6 respectively; and the right foot prints of Kumar-A.9 were marked as Items No.9 and 10, whereas his left foot prints were marked as Items No.11 and 12 and the left and footprints of Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Balan-A.11 were marked as Items No.7 and 8 respectively. Comparing the characteristics of impressions, the Scientific Officer was of the opinion, that the left foot impression on the insole of the leather chappal-Item No.3 and the left foot impression in Item No.5 (taken from A.10 Pavunraj) belong to one and the same left foot and that the right foot impression on the insole of the leather chappal in Item No.4 and the right footprint impression in Item No.6 (taken from A.10 Pavunraj) belonged to one and the same right foot, thereby showing that M.O.7, recovered from the scene of crime, must be one left by Pavunraj i.e. A.10, thereby, in a way, probablising, though it is not substantive evidence, that A.10 might have been in the scene of crime, while assaulting Vivek. This evidence, if corroborated by the eye-witnesses, then, there is a duty cast upon A.10 to explain, how his chappal came to the scene of crime and recovered, failure will lead to an inference, that he should have been present in the scene of crime, pursuant to the conspiracy, followed by the actual attack, on that date.

48. Thiru Ranjith Check-P.W.50, who compared the footprints or the impressions of the accused with M.O.7 has catalogued the reasons for his opinion. Though elaborate cross-examination was done by A.9 to A.11, as seen from the answers elicited, we find no answer, to doubt about the opinion or to take any different or possible some other opinion. By producing any text also, no argument was advanced before us, how the comparison of the footprint or the impression, as the case may be, is not scientifically dependable, even creating any doubt. In view of the fact, that the footprints were taken in the presence of the Judicial Officer, which were compared by P.W.50, with the impressions found in the chappal recovered from the scene of crime, we are of the considered opinion, that the opinion of P.W.50 viz. Ex.P.73, should have its credence, at least in probablising the case of the prosecution, though it is an opinion evidence, not coming within the meaning of substantial evidence. This opinion, if helpful to buttress the substantive evidence given by the eye-witnesses, identifying A.10 as well as stating about the leaving of the chappal, by one of the assailants, then, there is nothing wrong, in our considered opinion, to rely upon the oral evidence of P.W.50, as well as the report given by him in Ex.P.73. In the light of the above discussion, we are constrained to accept the oral evidence of P.W.50 and Ex.P.73, in order to see whether A.10 would have participated in the assault, which we will discuss, in detail, infra.

49. In obedience to the command of Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.10 was examined, bringing to his notice about the comparison of footprints or impressions available in M.O.7 with that of his footprints - left and right- which are marked as Items 5 and 6, by P.W.50, as indicated in Ex.P.73. The opinion of the expert, that the impression found in Item No.3 and 4 viz. chappals are similar to the footprints in Items 5 and 6, which belong to A.10, was also brought to the knowledge of A.10 , during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Despite the fact, he has not given any explanation, except exhibiting his ignorance, thereby showing, no explanation was offered and in this view, this failure should be taken into consideration, while assessing the oral evidence of P.Ws.14 to 16.