Introduction

• This is an important case on the evidentiary value of handwriting expert evidence.

Facts

• On 15^th August 1964, Mannu, a 5-year-old boy, went missing from the house of the Appellant's relative.
• A report was filed the next day at Sisamau police station, and a reward of Rs. 501 was announced through newspapers and handbills.
• Subsequently, post-cards dated 21^st August 1964 and an inland letter dated 21^st October 1964, demanding ransoms of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively, were received by Gajendra Nath, the boy's father.
• In December 1964, a person informed the boy's father about the child's possible whereabouts, leading to his recovery on 11^th January 1965, from the house of Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabhushan Singh in village Pandeypur, District Kanpur.
• Ram Narain, the Appellant, was implicated in sending the anonymous letters. He was convicted under Sections 384/511, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Though Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabhushan Singh were acquitted of the charges under Section 368, IPC Ram Narain's conviction was upheld based on the letters' evidence.
  • His revision petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court's Learned Single Judge.

Issues Involved

• Whether the legality and propriety of the Appellant's conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the hand-writing expert?

Observations

• The court acknowledged the fallibility inherent in expert opinions, including those provided by handwriting experts.
  • The court said that such evidence, while relevant, had to be approached with caution.
• The SC said that when the court, particularly the presiding officer familiar with the language, conducted a comparison of disputed and admitted writings, and found it safe to rely on the expert's opinion, such a conclusion was not easily contested.
• The court said that determination of each case hinged on the meticulous examination of evidence, and unless a serious flaw or injustice was evident, the SC generally refrained from revisiting the matter.

Conclusion

• In this case, the SC partially allowed the appeal, considering the appellant's previous bail status and the protracted legal proceedings spanning over eight years.
• Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's imprisonment sentence to time served, accompanied by a fine of Rs. 700. And said that failure to pay the fine would result in three months of rigorous imprisonment.