GULJAR ALI ETC. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 21-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
GULJAR ALI ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
OCTOBER 21, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Sections 45, 47 & 67-Jdentity of handwriting in a document-" Opinion 
of third person, when relevant"-Discussed-Also held, Sections 45 and 47 C 
are not exhaustive for proving the genuineness or authorship of a document. 
Expert Witness-Reliability of-Two letters written by one of the accused 
showing the motive for murder-Government Examiner gave an opinion that 
letters were written by that accused-Defence producing Expert witness to D 
show that the opinion of the Govt. Examiner faulty-Discarded by the High 
Court-Held, many so called experts have shown to be remunerated witnesses 
making themselves available on hire to pledge their faith in favour of the 
party paying them . 
. Section 27-Recovery of weapons pursuant to statements made by E 
accused-Admissibility of-Held, admissible only to the extent it distinctly 
relates to the facts discovered 
Circumstantial evidence : 
Offence of murder-Motive-Relevancy of-Held, accused have sufficient F 
motive against the deceased 
Deceased was the factotum to PW-13 with whom appellants had score 
to settle for long. On the day of the murder, the appellant had a dig at the wife 
of PW-13 and it resulted in the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 
Cr. P.C. Appellants were infuriated by it. In the evening, the three appellants G 
together proceeded to a glade situate near a jungle where deceased was 
working and showered blows on him with 'gandasa' and 'chhura'. The 
deceased made a loud cry which attracted the attention of some people in the 
proximity who rushed to the spot, but in the meantime the appellants took to 
their.heels towards the jungles. Those who reached the spot found deceased 
lying in a pool of blood. 
559 
H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997,rsUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
As there was no eye-witness to the murder, the prosecution had to relay 
on the circumstances alone for proving the murder. Both the Courts below 
relied on letters written by A2 to Al (asking Al to come home on leave with 
a weapon) and a letter to the CM of the State (that their family was suffering 
from the atrocities committed by the deceased) to prove the motive for the 
B murder. Likewise Al and A2 during th~ course of interrogation revealed to 
police where they had concealed the weapons 'gandasa' and 'chhura' in the 
jungle and these weapons were recovered. Sessions Court and the High Court, 
held that there was a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the 
complicity of the appellants in murdering the deceased. Hence this Appeal 
C 
Party allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Some letters have been seized by the police from the house 
of the appellants to show the motive for the crime. If those letters are genuine, 
no doubt, they reflect the mind of Al and A2 towards the deceased. PW-20, 
Government Examiner on questioned documents, after comparing the 
D handwriting in the said letters gave an opinion that both were written by the 
accused. An attempt was made by the accused, through the evidence ofDW-
1 (who claimed to be an expert in the science of hand-writing) to show that 
the opinion of the Government Examiner is basically faulty. High Court has 
observed that there is a natural tendency on the part of the expert witness to 
E support the view of the person who called him and preferred the opinion of 
PW-20. The said observation of the High Court cannot be downstaged, for, 
many so called experts have shown to be remunerated witnesses making 
themselves available on hire to pledge their oath in favour of the party paying 
them. [564-B-F] 
F 
1.2. Expert evidence regarding hand-writing is not the only mode by 
which genuineness of a document can be established. In order to prove the 
identity of the hand-writing any mode not forbidden by law can be resorted to. 
The requirement of Section 67 of the Evidence Act is only that the hand-
writing must be proved to be that of the person concerned. Of course, two 
G modes are indicated by law in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The 
former permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant evidence and the 
latter permits opinion of any person acquainted with such hand-writing to be 
regarded as relevant evidence. Those and some other provisions are subsumed 
under the title "opinion of third persons, when relevant". Opinion of third 
persons, other than those enumerated in the f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.