Case: Ram Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

the complainant in a case like this, i.e., in a case in which no handwriting expert had been examined in support of his statement."It was emphasised by the appellants learned counsel that according to this decision it is not safe to record a finding about a persons writing merely on the basis of comparison because the opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive and his evidence is normally insufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. Indeed the appellants contention was that in Fakhruddins case (AIR 1967 SC 1326 ) (supra) though reference was made to this decision, its ratio was not properly appreciated and the decision in Fakhruddin (supra) is not in conformity with this earlier decision. We are unable to agree with this submission. Reference was also made by the appellants counsel to Shashi Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 529 ) (supra) where it is observed that the expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and therefore before acting on it the courts usually look for corroboration either by direct or circumstantial evidence. In Shashi Kumar (supra), it may be pointed out, this Court found all the probabilities against the expert opinion and the direct testimony of two witnesses accepted by this Court also wholly inconsistent with that opinion.4. In our view, the legal position enunciated in Fakhruddin (AIR 1967 SC 1326 ) (supra) cannot be said to be inconsistent with the ratio of any one of the earlier decisions to which reference has been made therein. Now it is no doubt true that the opinion of a handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution. But this opinion evidence, which 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 that language, it is considered safe to accept the opinion of the expert then the conclusion so arrived at cannot be assailed on special leave on the mere ground that comparison of handwriting is generally considered as hazardous and inclusive and that the opinion of the handwriting expert has to be received with considerable caution. The question in each case falls for determination on the appreciation of evidence and unless some serious infirmity or grave failure of justice is shown, this Court would normally refrain from reappraising the matter on appeal by special leave. The trial Court in this case agreeing with the principle of law enunciated by this Court compared the relevant documents and arrived at the conclusion that they have all been written in one hand. The learned II Temporary Sessions Judge on appeal, after referring to the comparison of the disputed and specimen writings by the trial Magistrate, himself compared those writings with the help of the experts opinion and his report and came to a definite conclusion "that the disputed handwritings tally with the specimen handwriting". In the High Court also the learned Single Judge, after referring to the decision in Fakhruddin (supra), observed as follows: -"I have myself made a comparison of the specimen writing of the applicant with the writing contained in the two letters. I have not the least doubt that the writing in the post-card and the writing in the admitted writing of the applicant are the same. Thus, I have no reason to differ from the finding recorded by the courts below."No serious attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to find fault with the approach of the three courts below. There is, therefore, no ground made out for interference by this Court with the appellants conviction. Unfortunately, the record is not before us otherwise we would have also tried to examine for ourselves the disputed and the specimen handwritings. However, in view of the concurrent decisions of the three courts below we did not consider it necessary to adjourn the hearing of this case to have the documents before us for our examination.5. The next question is one of sentence which is always a matter of some difficulty. It generally poses a complex problem which requires a working compromise between the competing views based on reformative, deterrent and retributive theories of punishments. Though a 1arge number of factors fall for consideration in determining the appropriate sentence, the broad object of punishment of an accused found guilty in progressive civilized societies is to impress on the guilty party that commission of crime does not pay and that it is both against his individual interest and also against the larger interest of the society to which he belongs. The sentence to be appropriate should, therefore, be neither too harsh nor too lenient. In the case in hand the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for one Year upheld by the appellate and the revisional courts may not have been considered by us in the normal course to be too harsh calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The difficulty now posed is that the appellant is on bail and he has served out only one months sentence. He was originally sentenced by the trial Court on April 17, 1967 for the offence committed as far back as l964. The proceedings against him have lasted for more than 8 Years. He was released on bail by this Court in January, 1970. To send him back to jail now after the lapse of so many years for serving out the remaining period of sentence seems to us on the facts and circumstances of this case to be somewhat harsh. The offence of attempted extortion undoubtedly reflects to some extent anti-social depravity of mind but the attempt did not succeed.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We are unable to agree with this submission. Reference was also made by the appellants counsel to Shashi Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 529 ) (supra) where it is observed that the expert evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and therefore before acting on it the courts usually look for corroboration either by direct or circumstantial evidence. In Shashi Kumar (supra), it may be pointed out, this Court found all the probabilities against the expert opinion and the direct testimony of two witnesses accepted by this Court also wholly inconsistent with that opinion.4. In our view, the legal position enunciated in Fakhruddin (AIR 1967 SC 1326 ) (supra) cannot be said to be inconsistent with the ratio of any one of the earlier decisions to which reference has been made therein. Now it is no doubt true that the opinion of a handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution. But this opinion evidence, which 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 that language, it is considered safe to accept the opinion of the expert then the conclusion so arrived at cannot be assailed on special leave on the mere ground that comparison of handwriting is generally considered as hazardous and inclusive and that the opinion of the handwriting expert has to be received with considerable caution. The question in each case falls for determination on the appreciation of evidence and unless some serious infirmity or grave failure of justice is shown, this Court would normally refrain from reappraising the matter on appeal by special leave. The trial Court in this case agreeing with the principle of law enunciated by this Court compared the relevant documents and arrived at the conclusion that they have all been written in one hand. The learned II Temporary Sessions Judge on appeal, after referring to the comparison of the disputed and specimen writings by the trial Magistrate, himself compared those writings with the help of the experts opinion and his report and came to a definite conclusion "that the disputed handwritings tally with the specimenserious attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to find fault with the approach of the three courts below. There is, therefore, no ground made out for interference by this Court with the appellants conviction. Unfortunately, the record is not before us otherwise we would have also tried to examine for ourselves the disputed and the specimen handwritings. However, in view of the concurrent decisions of the three courts below we did not consider it necessary to adjourn the hearing of this case to have the documents before us for ourgenerally poses a complex problem which requires a working compromise between the competing views based on reformative, deterrent and retributive theories of punishments. Though a 1arge number of factors fall for consideration in determining the appropriate sentence, the broad object of punishment of an accused found guilty in progressive civilized societies is to impress on the guilty party that commission of crime does not pay and that it is both against his individual interest and also against the larger interest of the society to which he belongs. The sentence to be appropriate should, therefore, be neither too harsh nor too lenient. In the case in hand the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for one Year upheld by the appellate and the revisional courts may not have been considered by us in the normal course to be too harsh calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The difficulty now posed is that the appellant is on bail and he has served out only one months sentence. He was originally sentenced by the trial Court on April 17, 1967 for the offence committed as far back as l964. The proceedings against him have lasted for more than 8 Years. He was released on bail by this Court in January, 1970. To send him back to jail now after the lapse of so many years for serving out the remaining period of sentence seems to us on the facts and circumstances of this case to be somewhat harsh. The offence of attempted extortion undoubtedly reflects to some extentdepravity of mind but the attempt did not succeed.