PADUM KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

                         [2020] 1 S.C.R. 57                             57


                         PADUM KUMAR                                    A
                                 v.
                  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2020)
                        JANUARY 14, 2020                                B
         [R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Criminal Law – Evidence – Opinion of hand writing expert –
Appreciation of – Appellant-accused was working as Postman at
the relevant time – On 09.04.92, PW-3 sent registered envelope to
                                                                        C
the Complainant-PW-1 – Envelope contained four Indira Vikas Patra
of value of each Rs.5,000/- totalling Rs.20,000/- – Envelope did
not reach PW-1 who made complaint to the Department of Posts –
Information was received that a person named “Mohan” received
the aforesaid registry – PW-1 and his son named Devesh Mohan
(PW-2) went to the Post Office and saw the signature where it was       D
written “D. Mohan” – PW-2 denied that the signature in question
belongs to him – Investigation revealed that the appellant forged
the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 – Trial court convicted the
appellant u/ss.467, 468, IPC– Appellant’s appeal and revision were
dismissed – Held: Before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing
                                                                        E
expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence
is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial – In the
present case, the report of the Government Forensic Science
Laboratory was in favour of the appellant – But since the hand-
writing expert from the said laboratory was not examined, the said
report cannot be looked into – Further, the private hand-writing        F
experts (PW-5 and PW-8, son of the hand writing expert who died
by the time of the trial) opined that the disputed signature-”Q-1" in
Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures of PW-2, “S-1
to S-6” – Appellant not right in contending that the courts below
based the conviction solely upon the opinion of the hand-writing
                                                                        G
experts – Evidence of hand-writing experts is only a corroborative
piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 – Conviction
u/ss.467 & 468 IPC, confirmed – Under ss.467 & 468, the appellant
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four and three years
with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively – Occurrence was of the year
                                                                        H
                                 57
58           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    1992 – Appellant has been in custody from 04.07.18 i.e. for more
     than 18 months – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
     sentence of imprisonment imposed is reduced to the period already
     undergone – Appellant be released forthwith unless required in any
     other case – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467, 468.
B          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD : 1.1 In his evidence, son of the complainant-PW-2
     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
C    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.
     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
D    established that PW-2 had not put the signature in Ex.-P4-delivery
     slip. The prosecution relies upon the reports of the hand-writing
     experts only to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. The report of
     the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is in favour of the
     appellant. But as rightly pointed out by the courts below that
E    since the hand-writing expert from the Forensic Science
     Laboratory, Lucknow had not been examined, the said report
     cannot be looked into. The appellant-accused had also not
     summoned the hand-writing expert from the Government
     Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow to substantiate his
     defence. [Paras 12, 13] [63-H; 64-A-E]
F
          1.2 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. [Para 17] [66-D]

G          S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 :
           [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439 – referred to.
           Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210
           : [1977] 2 SCR 1007 ; Murari Lal v. State of Madhya
           Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704 : [1980] 2 SCR 249 – relied
           on.
H
       PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                          59


      1.3 The hand-writing experts - PW-5 and ‘SRG’ opined that       A
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 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-
                                                                      B
writing expert is the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to
corroborate the evidence of PW-2 who denied his signature in
Ex.-P4. The 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      C
the evidence of PW-2. 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
                                                                      D
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 having knowledge of the
same. From the evidence of PW-3, 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         E
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 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
                                                                      F
warranting interference. For the conviction under Section 467
IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
four years and for the conviction under Section 468 IPC, 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    G
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. The impugned judgment is accordingly
modified. [Paras 18-21] [67-F-H; 68-A-G]
                                                                      H
60            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A                            Case Law Reference
     [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 439          referred to              Para 15
     [1977] 2 SCR 1007                relied on                Para 16
     [1980] 2 SCR 249                 relied on                Para 17
B          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No. 87 of 2020.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2018 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Revision
     No. 511 of 2006.
C
           Saurabh Mishra, Rishad Murtaza and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
           Adarsh Upadhyay, Aviral Saxena and Garvesh Kabra, Advs. for
     the Respondent.
D          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. 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
E    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:-

F           The appellant-Padum Kumar was then working as Postman in
     Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow. On 09.04.1992, PW-3-Dr. M.L.
     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
G    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
H
       PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                61
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts that the envelope         A
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
                                                                            B
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.                                                    C
       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               D
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         E
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.      F
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-PW-8. The investigation revealed that the
appellant had forged the signature on the delivery slip-Ex.-P4. On          G
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.
                                                                            H
62            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    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
B
     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
C    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 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
D
     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,
E    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
F    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
G    to explain as to who signed the disputed signature and in the absence of
     any such explanation from 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.

H
        PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 63
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

        8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned       A
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
                                                                              B
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         C
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.
       9. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, learned counsel for         D
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           E
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          F
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                    G
investigation, it was learnt that on 14.05.1992, a person named Mohan
has received the aforesaid registry on 13.04.1992.
       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
                                                                              H
64             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    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
B
     “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
C    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
D    Laboratory, Lucknow has stated that the person who has written the
     specimen signatures “S-1 to S-6” had written the 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
E    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
F    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
G    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.
H
       PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                   65
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without         A
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:-
                                                                               B
      “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          C
      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        D
         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       E
         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            F
         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          G
         opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of
         substantive evidence and before acting on 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
                                                                               H
66            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A              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.”
B
           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
C    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
D    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
E          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
F          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
G          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.
H          It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial
       PADUM KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                   67
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion   A
      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
                                                                               B
      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       C
      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           D
      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        E
      should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion,
      consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept
      or reject it.”
       18. As pointed out earlier, the hand-writing experts - M.Y. Khan
(PW-5) and Siya Ram Gupta have opined that the disputed signature-             F
”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               G
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.                                 H
68             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A           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
B
     envelope as he is the only person 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
C    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
D    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
E    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.
           21. In the result, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
     Sections 467 and 468 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment
F    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
G    other case.

     Divya Pandey                                             Appeal partly allowed.




H