RAM NARAIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 05-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAM NARAIN 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
April 5, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND I. D. DuA, JJ,] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 45-Han_dwriting Expert-Sole testi-
mony for conviction--Courts below comparing handwriting for theniselves 
and c.greeing with Expert-No illegality in conviction--Sente,nce-Lapse 
of tin1e-Sentence reduced to period already undergone. 
The appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 384 read with 
s. 511 Indian Penal Code. 
The conviotion was solely based 
<>.ti 
the 
conclusion that the two anonymous letters dema:nding ransom for 
the 
kidn•pped boy had been written by him. The appellant having categori-
cally denied his authorship of those letters a handwriting 
expert was 
produced in support of t~ prosecution case, and believing the expert 
testimony the three cpurts below agreed in co!t?Victing 
the 
appellant. 
In this Court the sole question for consideration was as to the legality 
and propriety of the appeUant's conviction on the uncorroborated testi-
mony of the handwriting expert. It was urged by the appellant Iha: it 
was not safe to record a findi$lg about a person's hand~riting merely on 
the basis of comparison because the opinion of the handwriting expert is 
not conclusive. 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : (i) The legal 
position 
enundiated in 
Fakhruddin's case 
cannot be said to be inconsistent with the 
ratio of ftnyone 
of the 
earlier decisions to which reference has been made therein. [916A] 
Fakhruddin v. State of Madh,va Pradesh, A.LR. 1967 S.C. 1326, 
Ram Chandra v. State of U. P., A.LR. 1957 S.C. 381, Ishwari Prasad 
Misra v. Mohammad Isa, A.LR. 1963 S.C. 1728 and Sha.lhi Kumar 
Banerjee, v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, A.I.R. 1964 
S.C. 529, 
re-
ferred to. 
lt is no douPt true that the opinion of a hand-writing expert givtti 
in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opin'ion adduced in 
evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great 
caution. 
But this opinion evidepce wh'ich is relevant may be worthy 
of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence relating to 
the 
document in question supporting the view expressed by the expert. 
If 
after comparison of the disputed and the admitted writings by the Court 
itself when the Presiding Officer is familiar with the language, 
it is 
considered safe to accept the opinion of the expert, then the condusion 
so arrived at cannot be assa'iled on special leave on the mere ground 
that comparison of handwriting is genera11y considered as hazardous and 
inconclusive. 
In the present case the Trial Magistrate, the Sessions 
111<18" 
who 
h~ard the •ppeal and the ,High. ~our! themselve. co01pared the writing 
with the help of the experts opm1on and came to the conclusion that the 
disputed handwriting tallied with tho specime,n 
handwriting 
of 
the 
appellant. 
There was, therefore no ground for interference by this Court 
with the appellant's conviction. [9!6B] 
(ii) Though a large number of factors fall for 
consideration 
in 
determining the appropriate sentence the broad object 
of punishment 
9ll 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C.ll. 
of an accused found guilty in progressive civilized societies is to impress 
on the guHty party that commission of crime does not pay and that it is 
both against his individu-al interest and also against the larger 
interest 
of the soclety to which he belongs. The 'e:ntence to 
be 
appropriate 
should, therefore, be neither too harsh nor too lenient. 
The sentence 
Jf rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed in the present case \vould 
not in the normal course be considered to be too harsh but considerable 
time had elapsed since the commissio,o of crime and the appellant had 
been on bail granted by this Court since 
January, 1970. 
T-o 
send 
him back to jail after so many years would be somewhat harsh. c9 l 7B] 
[Sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine.] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal ~o. 
6 of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 10, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Rev. 
No. 2093 of 1967. 
J. P. Goyal and R. K. Bhatt, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DuA, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad 
High Court dated October 6, 1969 dismissing the 
appellant's 
revision from the order of a II 

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