LexMAGAN BIHARI LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1007t MAGAN BIHARI LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB. February 15, 1977 [P. N. BHAGWATI ,'\ND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Evidence-Value of opinion evidence-Conviction on the basis solely of opinion evidence of q handwriting expert without corroboration is unsafe- Evidence Act (Act No. 1 of 1872), s. 45-Probative value of circumstantial evidence. A' B A certain consignment of iron sheets despatched by Mis. Hindustan Steel Plant EXBNDM (Banda Bunda, near Bhilai) to Bikaner in wagon No. SEKG C · 4875 was carried to Ludhiana via. Agra because at some point of time before it reached Aara, the labels attached to the wagons were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tampered with and chaneed to EXLAR to LDH indicating that the wagon was despatched from Lalitpur and its destination was Ludhiana. One Umedi Lal, a resident of Agra, approached a firm called Mis. Jindal Khemka & Co. represented by its partners Joginder Lal and Ram Nath with a forged railway receipt Ex. PW 10 /A written on a blank form stolen from the Railway Receipt Book maintained at Ban more Railway Station and offered to sell to them the iron sheets covered by the afore- D · said consiillment sent by Mis. Hindustan Steel Co. Ltd. to Bikaner. Umedi Lal represented himself as the partner of M /s. Bansi Dhar & Sons., Laljtpur since the fori:ed RR (to self) bore the name of the consignor as Mis. Bansi Dhar & Sons, Lalitpur. After negotiations when one of the partners, Mr. Joginder Lal presented the RR and claimed the goods, a goods clerk on duty, by name Teja Singh Sodhi, entertained a doubt and returned the RR as defective. Thereafter, Umedi Lal accompanied by one Bhoja Ram, a washing soap dealer presented Ex. PW! OA himself and obtained the delivery of the goods from the very same I!: goods clerk, Teja Singh, who entertained the suspicion abont the RR earlier. Joginder Lal later on refused to purchase the iron sheets being a controlled item, in the absence of bill of purchase, but, however, took a receipt Ex. PW451 A from Umedi Lal to the effect that the latter has taken back the Iron sheets brought by him to their godown. The appellant, a guard working in the Nortnern Rail- way, was stated to have accompanied and been present on the day i.e., 6-8-1964 when Joginder Lal asked Umedi Lal to produce the original purchase bill. On . this basis coupled with the circumstances, namely, (a) his absence on leave from 1-8-1964 to 16-8-1964; (b) the tally of his handwriting given before the Police F during the investigation with that ·of Ex. PWlO /A as opined by the handwritten expert and (c) his identification by Ram Nath, one of the partners of M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. at the identification parade the appellant was put on trial for the offences under ss. 109/420, 411, 468, 471 but convicted for offences under ss. 468, 411, 1091420 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,0001- or in default to undergo further R.I., for six months under s. 468 and to R.I. for one year each under s. 411 and 109/420 I.P.C.-the subsiantive sentences to run concurrently. The appeals before the Sessions Judge and the revision before the High Court were dismissed. G' Allowing the appeal by special leave,· the Court, HELD : ( 1) It is well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert's opinion without substantial corroboration. In the instant case, it would be ·extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting'. expert. (IOI IC-DJ H, Ram Chtindra v. State AIR 1957 SC 361; lshw,.ri Prasad v. Md. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar AIR 1964 SC 529 and Fakhruddin v. State AIR 1967 SC 1326, reiterated. ~.,_. 1008 SUPREAIE COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 s.c.ll.. A Curnev v. Langlande (1622) 5 B & Ald. 330; Morllar of Alfred Foster's Will 34 Mich. 21, quoted with approva1. . B c D E F G H (2) In the instant case, the circumstance that the appellant was on leave from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964 does not lead to the inferences that be had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of iron sheets and that be was present in Ludhiana on 6th August 1964. The identification by Ram Nath after. some hesitation,· the improbability of identifying after
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.