Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs Mohammad Isa on 27 August, 1962
13. The next decision is the case of Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohamed Isa, . It has been observed :
Magan Bihari Lal vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 1977
14. My attention was also invited to a decision in Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1977(2) Supreme Court Cases 210, wherein it was found in para 7 of the judgment :
Ramnarayan Mor And Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 1963
15. In view of the law on this point as expounded by Supreme Court of India it would not have been possible for the prosecution to urge that conviction of accused No. 3 should be based merely on the evidence of hand writing expert P.W. 8 Maheshwar Shantaram Wagh. However prosecution further relies upon the fact that the Appellate Court for itself has examined the disputed writing the other writing of accused No. 3 purporting to be admitted and specimen writings. It is true that a finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below on the basis of findings of hand writing expert coupled with comparison of the two writings by the Court itself could not have been interfere in a revision petition as observed by Supreme Court of India in Ramnarayan v. State, but the difficult in the way of prosecution in the present case is something which goes to the root of the mater. I had an occasion to examine the entire evidence from P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 along with the learned public prosecutor for ascertaining as to whether Exhibit Z-28 to Exhibit Z-30 which are referred to as admitted writings of accused No. 3 and Exhibit Z-32 to Exhibit Z-40 which are referred as specimen writing of accused No. 3 are documents which have been proved, according to law. It was fairly conceded that Exhibit Z-28 to Exhibit Z-30 which are referred to as admitted writings of accused No. 3 and which include an inland letter which was used by the Appellate Court for comparison, are document which were not proved by any of the prosecution witnesses. They were also not put to accused No. 3 to elicit an answer from him regarding their authorship. So far as specimen writing Exhibit Z-32 to Z-40 are concerned the learned Public Prosecutor referred to the evidence of P.W.. 9 P.S.I. Sharad Narayan Sawant and contended that there documents were duly proved. The relevant statement upon which reliance was placed is as under :
Ram Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1956
12. The evidence of identification of hand writing as furnished by a hand writing expert is opinion evidence. It is not substantive evidence. Therefore, the law that has developed of this point is that a conviction could not be based merely on evidence furnished by a hand writing expert unless there were intrinsic or other circumstances corroborating the inference at which the expert had arrived or the Court concerned being proficient in that language came to a conclusion similar to the conclusion of the expert. The earliest case to which my attention was invited is Ram Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, . Jagannadhadas, J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Court observed in paragraph 8:
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1