REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    87          OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6990 of 2018)

PADUM KUMAR                        ...Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  challenging  the  impugned

judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High

Court  dismissed  the  revision  petition  filed  by  the  appellant

confirming his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the

sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.  

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:-

The appellant-Padum Kumar was then working as Postman in

Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow.  On 09.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L.

1

Varshney, Professor, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent

a  registered  envelope  No.0095  to  the  Complainant-Dr.  K.B.

Varshney (PW-1) from the Sub-Post Office of the said Institute. The

said envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each

Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/-.  The envelope did not reach PW-1-

Dr.  K.B.  Varshney;  therefore,  on  27.04.1992,  PW-3-Dr.  M.L.

Varshney made a complaint  before the Post Master,  Post  Office,

Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad.  PW-1-Complainant-Dr. K.B.

Varshney  also  enquired  from  Indira  Nagar  Post  Office.   On

29.04.1992,  PW-1  had  also  filed  a  complaint  to  the  Senior

Superintendent,  Department  of  Posts  that  the  envelope  Registry

No.0095 has not been received.  On 14.05.1992, information was

received from Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknow

that a person named “Mohan” has received the aforesaid registry on

13.04.1992.  Then, PW-1 and his son Devesh Mohan-PW-2 went to

Indira Nagar Post Office and saw the signature where it has been

written as “D. Mohan”.  Complainant’s son is also named Devesh

Mohan (PW-2). On being shown the signature, PW-2 denied that

the signature in question belongs to him.  A case was registered in

Crime No.394/1992 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC at P.S.

Ghazipur,  Lucknow.  The  case  was  investigated.  Later  on,  the

investigation of the case was entrusted to C.B. C.I.D.

2

4. The  Investigating  Officer  has  recorded  the  statement  of

various witnesses.  The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed

signature  along  with  the  specimen  signatures  of  PW-2-Devesh

Mohan to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow.  As per the

report  given  by  the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory,  Lucknow,  the

person  who  has  made  specimen  signatures  has  also  made  the

disputed  signature  in  the  delivery  slip-Ex.-P4.   The  disputed

signature “Q-1” along with the specimen signatures of PW-2 “S-1 to

S-6” were sent to private hand-writing expert M.Y. Khan-PW-5. In

his evidence, PW-5 has stated that on comparison of the disputed

signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip with the specimen signatures

of PW-2 “S-1 to S-6”, he came to the conclusion that the disputed

signature is different from the specimen signatures and PW-5 had

issued his report-Ex.-P9.  Yet another hand-writing expert Siya Ram

Gupta had also examined the disputed signature with reference to

the  specimen  signatures.  Siya  Ram  Gupta  had  opined  that  the

disputed signature in the delivery slip has not been made by PW-2-

Devesh Mohan.  By the time of trial, hand-writing expert Siya Ram

Gupta  passed  away  and  his  son  Ranjeet  Kumar  has  been

examined as PW-8. As PW-8-Ranjeet Kumar was acquainted with

the hand-writing of his father-Siya Ram Gupta, the report of hand-

writing expert Siya Ram Gupta has been marked through his son-

3

PW-8. The investigation revealed that the appellant had forged the

signature  on  the  delivery  slip-Ex.-P4.  On  completion  of

investigation,  charge  sheet  has  been filed  against  the  appellant-

accused under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.

5. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution

has examined PW-1-Dr. K.B. Varshney, PW-2-Devesh Mohan, PW-

3-    Dr. M.L. Varshney, hand-writing expert-PW-5-M.Y. Khan, PW-8-

Ranjeet Kumar, son of another hand-writing expert-Siya Ram Gupta

and  other  witnesses.  Upon  consideration  of  the  oral  and

documentary evidence, the trial court noted that three hand-writing

experts  are  on  record.   According  to  one  expert,  the  disputed

signature has been made by Devesh Mohan-PW-2.  The trial court

also  noted  that  the  other  two  experts  have  mentioned  in  their

reports  that  the  disputed  signature  “Q-1”  in  delivery  slip  do  not

match with the specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6”.  The trial court

held that the appellant being the Postman did the work of delivery of

registry  and  the  delivery  slip  was  kept  with  him  therefore,  the

conclusion is that the appellant made the signature of “D. Mohan” in

the delivery slip.  The trial court held that the appellant frequently

used to visit the house of the complainant-PW-1 by taking registries

and letters and thus, he was well-acquainted with the signature of

4

PW-2-Devesh Mohan.  Based upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and

the  reports  of  hand-writing  experts,  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.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.  

6. Challenging the conviction, the appellant has filed an appeal

before  the  appellate  court  –  Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,

Lucknow. The appellate court dismissed the appeal by holding that

upon proper analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the

trial  court  has rightly convicted the appellant  under Sections 467

and 468 IPC.  

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.511

of  2006  before  the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  which  came  to  be

dismissed by the impugned judgment. 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-Devesh Mohan differs. The High Court further held that the

appellant was the person who delivered the envelope and in such

circumstances, it is for the appellant to explain as to who signed the

disputed signature and in the absence of any such explanation from

5

the appellant, the presumption is to be raised against the appellant

that  he  is  the  only  person  having  knowledge  of  the  same.  The

revision  was  accordingly  dismissed  and  the  conviction  of  the

appellant was affirmed.

8. Assailing  the  impugned  judgment,  Mr.  Saurabh  Mishra,

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  contended  that  without

proving  that  the  appellant  has  forged  the  signature  in  Ex.-P4-

delivery slip, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and

468 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submitted

that the courts below erred in not considering that the Government

hand-writing expert’s report was in favour of the appellant. It was

submitted that in the absence of examination of hand-writing expert

Siya  Ram Gupta who gave the opinion,  the report  of  Siya Ram

Gupta cannot be proved by examining his son-Ranjeet Kumar-PW-8

and the courts below ought not to have placed reliance upon the

opinion  of  the  hand-writing  expert-PW-5-M.Y.  Khan  and  another

hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta. It was contended that the High

Court erred in holding that it is for the appellant to prove as to who

signed in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and the High Court erred in raising the

presumption  against  the  appellant  and  the  conviction  of  the

appellant is not sustainable.  

6

9. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel for

the respondent-State has submitted that upon proper appreciation

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the courts below rightly

convicted the appellant. It was submitted that the prosecution relies

upon not merely on the opinion of the hand-writing experts, but the

evidence  of  PW-2-Devesh  Mohan,  son  of  complainant-Dr.  K.B.

Varshney (PW-1) who has denied having put his signature in Ex.-

P4-delivery slip and the prosecution has well established the guilt of

the appellant.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned judgment and other materials on record.  

11. By adducing the evidence of Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3), the

prosecution  has  proved  that  on  09.04.1992,  PW-3  had  sent  a

registered  envelope  No.0095  to  PW-1-Dr.  K.B.  Varshney,  Indira

Nagar, Lucknow. When PW-1 did not receive the said envelope, on

27.04.1992, PW-3 complained the same to the concerned Sub-Post

Office,  Naini,  Allahabad.  PW-1-Dr.  K.B.  Varshney  also  filed  a

complaint on 29.04.1992 to the Senior Superintendent, Department

of  Posts,  Lucknow.  After  investigation,  it  was  learnt  that  on

14.05.1992,  a  person  named Mohan  has  received  the  aforesaid

registry on 13.04.1992.

7

12. In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2-Devesh Kumar

has 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. PW-

2 further stated that the appellant had brought the registry and his

mother had received them. It is to be pointed out that neither the

name of “Devesh Mohan” nor the name of “mother of PW-2” was

written  on  the  distribution  slip;  but  some  other  thing  had  been

written.  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-Devesh Mohan had not put the signature in

Ex.-P4-delivery slip.  

13. The prosecution relies upon the reports  of  the hand-writing

experts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2-Devesh Mohan.

Of course, hand-writing expert’s report by the Government Forensic

Science Laboratory, Lucknow has stated that the person who has

written  the  specimen  signatures  “S-1  to  S-6”  had  written  the

8

disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip. 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.  It  is

pertinent  to  note  that  the  appellant-accused  had  also  not

summoned the hand-writing expert from the Government Forensic

Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his defence.

14. Be that as it may, the hand-writing expert-M.Y. Khan (PW-5) in

his report-Ex.-P9 has stated that the person who had written the

specimen  signatures  “S-1  to  S-6”  had  not  written  the  disputed

signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4-delivery slip and that the same is different

from the signature of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. In his report, PW-5 had

also explained as to how the disputed signature does not match

with the specimen signatures of PW-2-Devesh Mohan. Likewise, in

his report, hand-writing expert Siya Ram Gupta had also opined that

the disputed signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip has not been written

by PW-2-Devesh Mohan. By the time when the trial was taken up,

hand-writing  expert  Siya  Ram Gupta  passed away and his  son-

Ranjeet Kumar (PW-8) who was acquainted with the hand-writing of

Siya Ram Gupta was examined to mark the report.

9

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without

independent  and  reliable  corroboration,  the  opinion  of  the  hand-

writing  experts  cannot  be  relied  upon  to  base  the  conviction.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance upon S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC

596, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

“28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot be said

to  be  of  a  clinching  nature  to  connect  the  appellant  with  the

disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of

evidence and the courts  do not  generally  consider  it  as offering

‘conclusive’ proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without

seeking independent  and reliable  corroboration. In  Magan Bihari

Lal v.  State of Punjab  (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the

evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:  

“… We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the

appellant  merely  on  the  strength  of  opinion  evidence  of  a

handwriting expert. It  is now 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.

There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that

it  is  unsafe  to  base  a  conviction  solely  on  expert  opinion

without  substantial  corroboration.  This  rule  has  been

universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law.

It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR

1957  SC  381  that  it  is  unsafe  to  treat  expert  handwriting

opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied

upon when supported by other items of internal and external

evidence.  This  Court  again  pointed  out  in  Ishwari  Prasad

Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of

handwriting can never be conclusive because it  is,  after all,

opinion  evidence,  and  this  view  was  reiterated  in  Shashi

Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529

where it was pointed out by this Court that expert’s evidence

as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever,

take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on

10

such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is

corroborated  either  by  clear  direct  evidence  or  by

circumstantial  evidence.  This  Court  had  again  occasion  to

consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to

handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326

and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be

risky  to  found  a  conviction  solely  on  the  evidence  of  a

handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the

court  must  always try  to  see  whether  it  is  corroborated by

other evidence, direct or circumstantial.”

16. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the

evidence of the hand-writing expert. As held by the Supreme Court

in  Magan  Bihari  Lal  v.  State  of  Punjab  (1977)  2  SCC  210 that

“expert opinion must always be received with great caution……..it is

unsafe  to  base  a  conviction  solely  on  expert  opinion  without

substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon

and it has almost become a rule of law.”  

17. It is fairly well settled that 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. In  Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. …….True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority

that  it  would  be  hazardous  to  base  a  conviction  solely  on  the

opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the

opinion  of  any  expert,  handwriting  expert  or  any  other  kind  of

expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses

— the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert

11

shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment

is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of

observation,  some  error  of  premises  or  honest  mistake  of

conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science,

the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the

science  is  less  developed  and  imperfect.  The  science  of

identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the

risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other

hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so

perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from

doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule

and  insisting  upon  substantial  corroboration  in  every  case,

howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons.

It  is  hardly  fair  to  an  expert  to  view  his  opinion  with  an  initial

suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion

has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him.

An  expert  deposes  and  not  decides.  His  duty  “is  to  furnish  the

Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy

of  his  conclusion,  so  as  to  enable  the  Judge  to  form  his  own

independent  judgment  by  the  application  of  these criteria  to  the

facts proved in evidence  (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v.

Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in

his evidence).”

5. …….

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence

Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to

identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in

questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant

fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon

before acting on the opinion of  an handwriting expert  and there

need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a

court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be

no hard and fast rule,  but nothing will  justify the rejection of the

opinion  of  an expert  supported by unchallenged reasons on the

sole ground that it  is  not corroborated.  The approach of a court

while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to

proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all

other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”

12

18. As pointed out earlier,  the hand-writing experts - M.Y. Khan

(PW-5)  and  Siya  Ram  Gupta  have  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 have also

opined that  the one who wrote the specimen signatures had not

written the disputed signature “Q-1” in Ex.-P4. As pointed out by the

courts below, the evidence of hand-writing expert is the evidence

relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-2-

Devesh Mohan who has denied his signature in Ex.-P4. Learned

counsel for 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-Devesh Mohan.

19. In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and other evidence,

the High Court rightly found that  the appellant who delivered the

registered envelope at the place of the complainant-PW-1 is bound

to explain as to who made the alleged signature in Ex.-P4-delivery

slip. In the absence of any explanation by the appellant-accused, as

held by the High Court, a presumption is to be raised against the

appellant  who  delivered  the  envelope  as  he  is  the  only  person

13

having knowledge of the same. From the evidence of PW-3-Dr. M.L.

Varshney, the prosecution has proved that the envelope contained

valuable security-four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/-

totalling Rs.20,000/-.   Upon appreciation of evidence adduced by

the prosecution,  the courts  below rightly  recorded the concurrent

findings that the appellant has forged the signature of PW-2-Devesh

Mohan and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and

468 IPC is based upon the evidence and the conviction does not

suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.  

20. For the conviction under Section 467 IPC, the appellant has

been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and for the

conviction  under  Section  468  IPC,  the  appellant  has  been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years along with fine

of Rs.500/-. The occurrence was of the year 1992. As seen from the

custody  certificate,  the  appellant  has  been  in  custody  from

04.07.2018  i.e.  for  a  period  of  more  than  eighteen  months.

Considering that the occurrence was of the year 1992 and the facts

and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  sentence  of  imprisonment

imposed  upon  the  appellant  is  reduced  to  the  period  already

undergone.  

14

21. In the result,  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. The  impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by

the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Criminal  Revision

No.511 of  2006 is  accordingly  modified and the appeal  is  partly

allowed. The appellant-accused is ordered to be released forthwith

unless his presence is required in any other case.

………………………..J.                                                                           [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………..J.                                                                     [A.S. BOPANNA]

New Delhi; January 14, 2020.

15