HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1378 of 2001 DATE:03.03.2010 Between: K.E. Gowri Sankar … Petitioner And P. Kandaiah and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1378 of 2001 JUDGMENT: On the basis of a complaint given by the 1st respondent herein-complainant herein against the petitioner herein, accused in C.C.No.65 of 1995, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Having been satisfied with the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated 14.09.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.217 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. But however, the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 12.11.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred this revision. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent- complainant, has been appointed as the person-in-management for Sri Kodandarama Swamyvari Devasthanam and Oosuramma and Gangamma Devasthanam, Kannavaram village, and the petitioner- accused is also a resident of Kannavaram village and son of the V.A.O. of the said village. The complainant filed a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 IPC against the father of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, and the same is numbered as C.C.No.147 of 1994. As a counter blast to it, the accused sent a petition against the complainant to the authorities of the Devasthanam alleging that the complainant deserted his wife and was leading immoral life in the Devasthanam premises, and hence, he is not a fit person to act as person-in-management of the Devasthanams. The accused also sent report and false certificate of the Sarpanch of Kannavaram with forged signatures on 14.12.1993 to the higher authorities. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and the imputations made against the complainant were communicated to the villagers of Kannavaram and it caused harm to the reputation of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.65 of 1995. 3. Heard both sides. 4. During the course of hearing, it is stated that the complainant died. May be it is true that the death of complainant no way makes any difference, so far as the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below against the petitioner. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition marked as Ex.P.2 alleged to have been published by the petitioner is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the opinion of the hand writing expert or his evidence cannot be accepted, unless the same is not corroborated by some independent and unimpeachable evidence. In this connection, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to a decision reported in Muralilal V. State of M.P.[1] and thus tried to impress upon this Court stating that the complainant miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused-petitioner herein. 6. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, held as follows: “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 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 fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent.“ 7. I am fully in agreement with the said view of the Apex Court and if the said principle is applied to the case on hand, in my considered view, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The entire case rests on the evidence of P.W.6 i.e., the hand writing expert. Excepting the alleged statement of the complainant supported by the evidence of the hand writing expert, P.W.6, there is no unimpeachable evidence during the course of evidence. In the light of the same, this Court is of the view that benefit of doubt shall be extended to the petitioner, and accordingly, he is liable to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. 8. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, in C.C.No.65 of 1995, in his judgment dated 14.09.2000, as confirmed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Crl.A.No.217 of 2000, in his judgment dated 12.11.2001, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence. ______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 3rd March, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1378 of 2001 (Allowed) Date:03-03-2010 CBS [1] AIR 1980 Supreme Court 531