# 1007t MAGAN BIHARI LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB - **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1007 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1977-02-15 - **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, \Nd S. Murtaza Fazal Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1007t-magan-bihari-lal-v-state-of-punjab-7001 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote Evidence-Value of opinion evidence-Conviction on the basis solely of opinion evidence of q handwriting expert without corroboration is unsafeEvidence Act (Act No. 1 of 1872), s. 45-Probative value of circumstantial evidence. A' B A certain consignment of iron sheets despatched by Mis. Hindustan Steel Plant EXBNDM (Banda Bunda, near Bhilai) to Bikaner in wagon No. SEKG C · 4875 was carried to Ludhiana via. Agra because at some point of time before it reached Aara, the labels attached to the wagons were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tampered with and chaneed to EXLAR to LDH indicating that the wagon was despatched from Lalitpur and its destination was Ludhiana. One Umedi Lal, a resident of Agra, approached a firm called Mis. Jindal Khemka & Co. represented by its partners Joginder Lal and Ram Nath with a forged railway receipt Ex. PW 10 /A written on a blank form stolen from the Railway Receipt Book maintained at Ban more Railway Station and offered to sell to them the iron sheets covered by the aforeD · said consiillment sent by Mis. Hindustan Steel Co. Ltd. to Bikaner. Umedi Lal represented himself as the partner of M /s. Bansi Dhar & Sons., Laljtpur since the fori:ed RR (to self) bore the name of the consignor as Mis. Bansi Dhar & Sons, Lalitpur. After negotiations when one of the partners, Mr. Joginder Lal presented the RR and claimed the goods, a goods clerk on duty, by name Teja Singh Sodhi, entertained a doubt and returned the RR as defective. Thereafter, Umedi Lal accompanied by one Bhoja Ram, a washing soap dealer presented Ex. PW! OA himself and obtained the delivery of the goods from the very same I!: goods clerk, Teja Singh, who entertained the suspicion abont the RR earlier. Joginder Lal later on refused to purchase the iron sheets being a controlled item, in the absence of bill of purchase, but, however, took a receipt Ex. PW451 A from Umedi Lal to the effect that the latter has taken back the Iron sheets brought by him to their godown. The appellant, a guard working in the Nortnern Railway, was stated to have accompanied and been present on the day i.e., 6-8-1964 when Joginder Lal asked Umedi Lal to produce the original purchase bill. On . this basis coupled with the circumstances, namely, (a) his absence on leave from 1-8-1964 to 16-8-1964; (b) the tally of his handwriting given before the Police F during the investigation with that ·of Ex. PWlO /A as opined by the handwritten expert and (c) his identification by Ram Nath, one of the partners of M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. at the identification parade the appellant was put on trial for the offences under ss. 109/420, 411, 468, 471 but convicted for offences under ss. 468, 411, 1091420 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,0001- or in default to undergo further R.I., for six months under s. 468 and to R.I. for one year each under s. 411 and 109/420 I.P.C.-the subsiantive sentences to run concurrently. The appeals before the Sessions Judge and the revision before the High Court were dismissed. G' Allowing the appeal by special leave,· the Court, HELD : ( 1) It is 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. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert's opinion without substantial corroboration. In the instant case, it would be ·extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting'. expert. (IOI IC-DJ H, Ram Chtindra v. State AIR 1957 SC 361; lshw,.ri Prasad v. Md. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar AIR 1964 SC 529 and Fakhruddin v. State AIR 1967 SC 1326, reiterated. ~.,_. 1008 SUPREAIE COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 s.c.ll.. A Curnev v. Langlande (1622) 5 B & Ald. 330; Morllar of Alfred Foster's Will 34 Mich. 21, quoted with approva1. . B c D E F G H (2) In the instant case, the circumstance that the appellant was on leav ## Text 1007t MAGAN BIHARI LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB. February 15, 1977 [P. N. BHAGWATI ,'\ND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Evidence-Value of opinion evidence-Conviction on the basis solely of opinion evidence of q handwriting expert without corroboration is unsafeEvidence Act (Act No. 1 of 1872), s. 45-Probative value of circumstantial evidence. A' B A certain consignment of iron sheets despatched by Mis. Hindustan Steel Plant EXBNDM (Banda Bunda, near Bhilai) to Bikaner in wagon No. SEKG C · 4875 was carried to Ludhiana via. Agra because at some point of time before it reached Aara, the labels attached to the wagons were either changed or removed and the entry in the vehicle summary guidance was also tampered with and chaneed to EXLAR to LDH indicating that the wagon was despatched from Lalitpur and its destination was Ludhiana. One Umedi Lal, a resident of Agra, approached a firm called Mis. Jindal Khemka & Co. represented by its partners Joginder Lal and Ram Nath with a forged railway receipt Ex. PW 10 /A written on a blank form stolen from the Railway Receipt Book maintained at Ban more Railway Station and offered to sell to them the iron sheets covered by the aforeD · said consiillment sent by Mis. Hindustan Steel Co. Ltd. to Bikaner. Umedi Lal represented himself as the partner of M /s. Bansi Dhar & Sons., Laljtpur since the fori:ed RR (to self) bore the name of the consignor as Mis. Bansi Dhar & Sons, Lalitpur. After negotiations when one of the partners, Mr. Joginder Lal presented the RR and claimed the goods, a goods clerk on duty, by name Teja Singh Sodhi, entertained a doubt and returned the RR as defective. Thereafter, Umedi Lal accompanied by one Bhoja Ram, a washing soap dealer presented Ex. PW! OA himself and obtained the delivery of the goods from the very same I!: goods clerk, Teja Singh, who entertained the suspicion abont the RR earlier. Joginder Lal later on refused to purchase the iron sheets being a controlled item, in the absence of bill of purchase, but, however, took a receipt Ex. PW451 A from Umedi Lal to the effect that the latter has taken back the Iron sheets brought by him to their godown. The appellant, a guard working in the Nortnern Railway, was stated to have accompanied and been present on the day i.e., 6-8-1964 when Joginder Lal asked Umedi Lal to produce the original purchase bill. On . this basis coupled with the circumstances, namely, (a) his absence on leave from 1-8-1964 to 16-8-1964; (b) the tally of his handwriting given before the Police F during the investigation with that ·of Ex. PWlO /A as opined by the handwritten expert and (c) his identification by Ram Nath, one of the partners of M/s. Jindal Khemka & Co. at the identification parade the appellant was put on trial for the offences under ss. 109/420, 411, 468, 471 but convicted for offences under ss. 468, 411, 1091420 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,0001- or in default to undergo further R.I., for six months under s. 468 and to R.I. for one year each under s. 411 and 109/420 I.P.C.-the subsiantive sentences to run concurrently. The appeals before the Sessions Judge and the revision before the High Court were dismissed. G' Allowing the appeal by special leave,· the Court, HELD : ( 1) It is 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. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert's opinion without substantial corroboration. In the instant case, it would be ·extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting'. expert. (IOI IC-DJ H, Ram Chtindra v. State AIR 1957 SC 361; lshw,.ri Prasad v. Md. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar AIR 1964 SC 529 and Fakhruddin v. State AIR 1967 SC 1326, reiterated. ~.,_. 1008 SUPREAIE COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 s.c.ll.. A Curnev v. Langlande (1622) 5 B & Ald. 330; Morllar of Alfred Foster's Will 34 Mich. 21, quoted with approva1. . B c D E F G H (2) In the instant case, the circumstance that the appellant was on leave from 1st August 1964 to 16th August 1964 does not lead to the inferences that be had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of iron sheets and that be was present in Ludhiana on 6th August 1964. The identification by Ram Nath after. some hesitation,· the improbability of identifying after 2! years a- person who is supposed to have merely accompanied another only once-and the inability of I oginder Lal to identifY him-all these are circumstances, \vhich militate · the prosecution theory of the appellant's presence. No conviction can therefore, be founded on such evidence. [10t2D-A, 1013-A-BJ . (3) In the instant case the various facts, namely, inability of the Police to trace Umedi Lal or even Bhoja Ram who was frequently going to the Railway Station for taking delivery of goods on behalf of ~.f/s_ Jindal Khemka & Co. and· apprehend them, the passing on of the forged Ex. PWIO/A to Joginder Lal by Umedi Lal, a stranger without insisting on payment and even without settling the bargain, the delivery of the gqods the next day to Umedi Lal by Teja Singh who earlier suspected the genuineness of the RR when presented by Joginder Lal, the return of the iron sheets on the advice of some broker· on the non-22roduction by Umedi Lal of a bill of purchase, taking a receipt Ex. P\V45/ A when Umedi Lal removed back his goo~nted out by this Court that expert's evidence a's to handWriting being opin~n 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 expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State(~) 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. It is interesting to note that the same view is also echoed in the judgments of English and America! courts. Vide Gurney v. Langlands(5 ) and Matter of Alfred (1) AIR 1957 SC 381. (2) AIR 1963 SC 1728 (3) Al.fl 1964 SC 529 (4) AIR 1967 SC 1346 (5) 1822, 5:0 & Qld 330 A B c D E F G ff A ·B ·c :P .E -.-,F' ·1'012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. Fogter's Will('). The Supreme Court of Michigan pointed out in the last mentioned case : "Every one knows how. very unsafe it is to rely upon any one's opinion concerning the .niceties of penmanship ·-Opinions are necessarily received, and may be valuable, but at best this kind of evidence, is a necessary evil". We need not subscribe to the extreme view expressed by the Supreme Court of Michigan; but there can be no doubt that this type of evidence being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form ihe. basis. for a conviction. We must, therefore, try to see whether, in the present case, there is, apart from the evidence of the hand· writing expert B. Lal, any other evidence connecting the appellant with the offence. The. only other evidence which was sought to be .relied upon on ·,...... _behalf of the prosecution was that showing the presence of the appellant with Umedi Lal at Ludhiana when there was talk between Umedi Lal on the one hand and Joginder Lal and Ram Nath on the other in regard to the sale of the iron sheet's. But this evidence is wholly unsati~factory and does not inspire any confidence at all. In the first place, it is difficult to see why the appellant should have gone with Urnedi Lal to Ludhiana for the purpose of selling the iron sheets. The appellant was a mere railway Guard and even if it be assumed for the purpose of argument that his service were utilised for the pur- , pose of forging the railway receipt Ex. PW 10/ A, there is no reason \vhy he' should have been persuaded to accompany Umedi Lal to Ludhiana. It is true that the appellant was on leave from 1st AugJ,Ist, 1964 to 16th August, 1964 but from that circumstance, it does. not follow that he had gone to Ludhiana in connection with the sale of the iron sheets. Even according to the prosecution, the .appellant was in. Ludhiana only on 6th August, 1964 and that would not necessitate the appellant taking such a long leave from 1st August, 1964 to 16th August, 1964. The leave taken by the appellant. from 1st August, 1964 to 16th August, 1964 would not necessarily. support the inference th?t the appellant was pre~ent in Ludhiana on. 6th August, 1964. The appellant might have taken this long leave for some other purpose. · Moreover, it may be noted that .A Joginder Lal . could not identify the appellant at the test identification parade held at the Central Jail, Patiala. Ram Nath, of course, did identify the appellant but that was after some hesitation. The Special Railway Magistrate (PW 39) stated in cross-examination that Ram Nath took some time in identifying the appellant. The ai:ioellati.t in fact raised an objection before the Special. Railway Magistrate; prior to the test identification parade, that he had a doubt that he had been shown to the witnesses by the police. The identi- . fic:ltion made by Ram Nath at the test identification parade can- . not, therefore, insoire any confidence in the mind of the Court. M0reover, it is difficult to imapne how Ram Nath who is supposed to have seen the appellant for the first time on 6th August, 1964 on a stray occasion could identify him at a test identification parade held after about two and a half years on 25th February, 1967: It ;, not as if the appellant had any direct talk with Ram Nath on thi~ --(fj34 MiCh-:-zI- - - M. B. LAL v. PUNJAB (Bhagwati, J.) 1013 solitary occasion. The appellant was supposed to have merely accompanied Umedi, Lal along with one or two other persons_ and· it is impossible to believe that Ram Nath could have remembered his fact after such a long period as two and a half years. We are not at all satisfied that the appellant was with Umedi Lal when the latter is supposed to have negotiated. :·iWith Joginder Lal and Ram Nath in connection with the sale of the irnn sheets. · i. It is indeed strange that the police could not trace Umedi ·_Lal or even Bhoja Ram. Bhoja Ram, according to the . prosecuti.on evidence, was frequently going to the Railway Station for taking delivery of goods on behalf of Mis Jindal Khemka & Co. and yet he could not be caught hold of by the police. That is indeed a sad commentary on the efficiency of the police. We fail to understand why the police did not try to find out what happened to the iron sheets-where they went froni the shop of Mis Jindal Khemka & Co. If the prosecution story is true, these iron sheets were removed by Umedi Lal from the shop of Mis Jindal Khemka & Co. and they must have been removed by some cartmen. We find it difficult to believe that the police could not have pursued the matter and traced the iron sheets by making enquiries from the cartmen. ft is also intriguing why the police did not try to find out the where abouts of Bhoja Ram. Surely he could not .have disappeared into the thin air. It is not right for us to speculate but we cannot help feeling that Mis Jindal Khemka & Co. were not absolutely innocent in so far as this transaction is concerned. Umedi Lal was a stranger to both Joginder Lal and Ram Nath and yet, according to the prosecution case, Umedi Lal handed over the forged Railway Receipt PW. IOI A to Joginder Lal for the purpose of takiug delivery of the goad's without insisting on payment and even without settling the bargain. The Railway Receipt Ex. PW lOIA was found to be defective by T_eja Singh Sodhi, Goods Clerk on 2nd August, 1964 and yet on the next day, strangely enough, he was, for some inexplicable reason, "l. persuaded to accept the same Railway Receipt and delivered the f wiron sheets against it at the instance of Bhoja Ram, who was a person ,frequently acting on behalf of Mis Jindal Khernka & Co. Then again, Joghider Lal and Ram Nath are supposed to have returned the _ iron sheets to Umedi Lal because some· broker told them that they ~ •hould insist on the production of a bill of purchase by Umedi Lal which Umedi Lal was unable to do. This also appe_ars to be a rather disingenuous story made up by Joginder Lal and Ram Nath for the purpose_ of 'showing as if the iron sheets did not remain with them. ft is ii'rc!eed strange why they should have taken a receipt from Umedi Lal when the latter removed the goods from their shop. The iron ~beets belonged to Umedi Lal and if Umedi Lal took them back from Joglnder Lal and Ram Nath, there was no reason why the latter should have insisted on taking a receipt from him. Presumably the receipt was fabricated for the purpose of supporting their case that they did not keep the iron sheetS with them, because otherwise they would have no account for them. It does appear to us prima facie that Umedi Lal was a fictitious person and the iron sheets were taken delivery of by Mis Jindal Khemka & Co. for themselves on the A c D E F G H A 1014 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 s.C.R. strength of the forged Railway Receipt PW 10/ A. But some how or the other, due to police inaction, they appear to haye escaped and a small man like the appellant seems to have been made a scape-goa~. . . i ; ~ We are of the view that the prosecution has totally failed to bring··."' mome the charge against the appellant and· hence our. order dated 28th January, 1977 setting aside the order of conviction and sentence JI recorded agains_t the appellant and acquitting him of the offences . charged against him. S.R. Appeal allowed. 206SCI/77-GIPF •. •