Case: Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka

113 of "Ashoka Lodge" where he had stayed on the fateful day and had left the "Lodge" with his child on the pretext that he was going to call his relations as Padmavathi had died of heart-attack. As pointed out earlier, Padmavathi had died of strangulation. The appellants presence in the room immediately before the death of Padmavathi and his conduct in not coming back to the "Lodge" are circumstances strong enough to establish his guilt. 34. Some dispute appears to have been raised before the High Court as also before us that the hotel records should not be relied upon to indicate that the appellant had stayed in "Ashoka Lodge". 35. Ajit (P.W.2), room-boy of the "Lodge", in his statement on oath, has given out that the appellant had come with his wife and child to the "Ashoka Lodge" and had taken one room on the ground-floor for his stay. The necessary entry (Ex.P1(a)) was made by the Manager of the "Lodge" in the "Register of Lodgers". The appellant had put his signature on the Register which is Ex.P1(b). The appellant, his wife and the child had been taken by the room-boy to Room No. 113 where he also supplied an extra bed. The hotel Manager, though mentioned as a witness in the charge-sheet, was not examined as he had already left the service of the "Lodge". These facts stand proved by the statement of the room-boy and the High Court has already recorded a finding that the appellant had stayed in Room No. 113 of the "Ashoka Lodge". 36. The original records were also placed before us and we have perused those records. Since learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not stayed in the "Ashoka Lodge", we looked into the "Register of Lodgers". It contains the relevant entry against which signature of the appellant also appears. His signature also appears on the "Vakalatnama" filed by him in this appeal. In the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, we compared the signature of the appellant on the "Vakalatnama" with the signature in the "Register of Lodgers". A mere look at the signatures was enough to indicate the similarity which was so apparent that it required no expert evidence. This comparison was done by us having regard to the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act which provides as under :- "S. 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with other admitted or proved. - In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person." 37. This Section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen writing or finger prints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The Section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act. (See State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 : 1979(2) SCC 158). 39. We have already recorded above that on the comparison of the signature in the "Register of Lodgers" with the appellants signature on the "Vakalatnama", we have not found any dissimilarity and are convinced that the appellant himself had signed the "Register of Lodgers" in token of having taken Room No. 113 in "Ashoka Lodge" on rent wherein he had stayed with his wife and the child.40. On an overall consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court, in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, had fully adhered to the principles laid down by this Court in various decisions and there is no infirmity in its judgment.41. The circumstances, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant conclusively establish his guilt and no amount of innovative steps by him including sporting a beard and later shaving off the beard and the head could conceal the offence or his identity. It was rightly remarked by the famous Urdu Poet, Amir Meenai in a couplet :- "Qareeb hai yaro jo Roz-i-MahsharChhupey ga kushton ka khoon keonkarJo chup Rahegi Zaban-i-khanjarLahoo Pukarega Aastin Ka" 42. Translated into English, it will mean :- "On the day of Judgment, you will not be able to conceal the killing of innocents. If the sword will keep silent, the bloodstains on your sleeves will reveal your guilt."

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The Addl. Sessions Judge had fallen into the web of this, apparently forceful argument but the High Court, and in our opinion, rightly, accepted the remaining evidence and held that in spite of hostility of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution story was fully established.This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as underIn an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers, it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction.(2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in order words, perverse.(3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal.(4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court.(5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted.(6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box.(7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused.This Section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen writing or finger prints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The Section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.38. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act.We have already recorded above that on the comparison of the signature in the "Register of Lodgers" with the appellants signature on the "Vakalatnama", we have not found any dissimilarity and are convinced that the appellant himself had signed the "Register of Lodgers" in token of having taken Room No. 113 in "Ashoka Lodge" on rent wherein he had stayed with his wife and the child.40. On an overall consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court, in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, had fully adhered to the principles laid down by this Court in various decisions and there is no infirmity in its judgment.41. The circumstances, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant conclusively establish his guilt and no amount of innovative steps by him including sporting a beard and later shaving off the beard and the head could conceal the offence or his identity.