LexPADUM KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 57 PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2020) JANUARY 14, 2020 [R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Criminal Law – Evidence – Opinion of hand writing expert – Appreciation of – Appellant-accused was working as Postman at the relevant time – On 09.04.92, PW-3 sent registered envelope to the Complainant-PW-1 – Envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/- – Envelope did not reach PW-1 who made complaint to the Department of Posts – Information was received that a person named “Mohan” received the aforesaid registry – PW-1 and his son named Devesh Mohan (PW-2) went to the Post Office and saw the signature where it was written “D. Mohan” – PW-2 denied that the signature in question belongs to him – Investigation revealed that the appellant forged the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 – Trial court convicted the appellant u/ss.467, 468, IPC– Appellant’s appeal and revision were dismissed – Held: Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial – In the present case, the report of the Government Forensic Science Laboratory was in favour of the appellant – But since the hand- writing expert from the said laboratory was not examined, the said report cannot be looked into – Further, the private hand-writing experts (PW-5 and PW-8, son of the hand writing expert who died by the time of the trial) opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures of PW-2, “S-1 to S-6” – Appellant not right in contending that the courts below based the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writing experts – Evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 – Conviction u/ss.467 & 468 IPC, confirmed – Under ss.467 & 468, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four and three years with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively – Occurrence was of the year [2020] 1 S.C.R. 57 57 A B C D E F G H 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1992 – Appellant has been in custody from 04.07.18 i.e. for more than 18 months – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed is reduced to the period already undergone – Appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467, 468. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2 stated that the registry is said to have been received at his house on 13.04.1992 and on the said date, he was not present at home as he had gone for coaching at 10:00 am and had come back to the house at about 04:00 pm. On being shown the delivery slip- Ex.-P4, PW-2 clearly denied that it does not bear his signature. The evidence of PW-2 denying his signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip is a valuable piece of evidence supporting the case of the prosecution. The courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings that by the evidence of PW-2, the prosecution has clearly established that PW-2 had not put the signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writing experts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is in favour of the appellant. But as rightly pointed out by the courts below that since the hand-writing expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, the said report cannot be looked into. The appellant-accused had also not summoned the hand-writing expert from the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence. [Paras 12, 13] [63-H; 64-A-E] 1.2 Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. [Para 17] [66-D] S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439 – referred to. Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 : [1977] 2 SCR 1007 ; Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704 : [1980] 2 SCR 249 – relied on. A B C D E F G H 59 1.3 The hand-writing experts - PW-5 and ‘SRG’ opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures-”S-1 to S-6". Hand- writing experts also opin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.