Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 15th January 2020
Padum Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Cr. A. No.87 of 2020
Facts:
The appellant was working as a Postman. A Professor of Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent a registered envelope to the Complainant from the Sub-Post Office of the Institute. The envelope did not reach to the complainant therefore, a complaint was filed before the PostMaster of Post Office, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad.
● Complainant also filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts that the registered envelope has not been received. Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknow said that a person named “Mohan” has received the aforesaid registry.
● Then, complainant went to Post Office and saw the signature where it has been written as “D. Mohan”. Complainant’s son’s name is also Devesh Mohan (PW-2). On being shown the signature, PW-2 denied that the signature belongs to him.
● A case was registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC at P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow. The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed signature along with the specimen signatures of PW-2 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. As per the report, the person who has made specimen signatures has also made the disputed signature in the delivery slip.
● The disputed signature along with the specimen signatures of PW-2 were sent to private hand-writing expert. The expert came to the conclusion that the disputed signature is different from the specimen signatures.
● The investigation revealed that the appellant had forged the signature on the delivery slip. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
● 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.
● 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 differs. The revision was accordingly dismissed and the conviction of the appellant was affirmed.
Appellant Contention:
● The courts below erred in not considering that the Government hand-writing expert’s report was in favour of the appellant.
● In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, the SC opined: “ expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perphas with more caution a opinion of handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration”.
● So, the court cannot solely relied upon the opinion of the handwriting experts.
Respondent Contention:
● The prosecution relies upon not merely on the opinion of the hand-writing experts, but the evidence of PW-2, son of complainant who has denied having put his signature in delivery slip and the prosecution has well established the guilt of the appellant.
Held:
● The appellant is not right in contending that the courts below have based the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writing experts. The evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2.
● The courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings that the appellant has forged the signature of PW-2.
● The conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone.
Leave a Reply