( 1 ) 1. Respondents-1 and 2 were Accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C. C. No. 3319 of 1978 on the file of the III Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mysore. They were tried for offences punishable under Section 120-B, 465 read with Sec. 120-B I. P. C. for agreeing to commit forgery of the answer papers of 1st Year b Com. , Examination of Accused No. 1 and in prosecution of the said conspiracy accused No. 2 wrote the answer papers of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was also tried for an offence punishable under s. 471 I. P C. for using the forged answers written by Accused No. 2 as his. As both the accused denied the commission of the said offences, P. Ws 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P56 were produced on behelf of the prosecution. The defence of both the accused was one ot total denial. The learned trial magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State after obtaining leave. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: - a-1 was the candidate for the 1st year 6 Com, (INR ) Degree Examination conducted by the University of Mysore during april, 1975. He was to take the said examination in Banumaiah's College of commerce, Mysore, and his Registration number was 1893. The examination was conducted from 21 -4-1975 to 26-4 1975. Exhibits P2 to P6 are the answer scripts pertaining to him in the said examination. One Mr. Shankaranarayana Bhat was the assistant Examiner for English paper of the said examination. In the process of valuation, he suspected malpractice with respect to the answer script pertaining to a-1 as the handwriting on the first page and the handwriting of the answers were different It also appeared to him that the original leaves of the answer book were detached and a ready made script had been loosely tagged to the cover. He also found that the leaves were longer in size than the cover sheet of the answer book. He also found that the leaves were longer in size than the cover sheet of the answer book. Hence, he did not value the said answer script and wrote a letter as per Exhibit P1 2 to the Controller of Examinations (P. W. 5) who secured theanswer books of the said candidate in other subjects also and was satisfied that some foul play had been committed and referred the said answer scripts Exhibits P2 to P5 to the Malpractices and Lapses enquiry Committee of the University for enquiry. The said Committee after enquiry held that A-1 had not written the said answers and held him guilty and debarred him for two years from appearing for examination and also recommended that criminal prosecution may be launched against him. The report of the said committee is ma ked as Exhibit P56. Then P. W. 1 gave a complaint as per exhibit P1 to the Superintendent of police, C O. D. Bangalore. On the basis of that, a case was registered in Crime no. 5 of 1976 of Lekshmipuram Police station, Mysore, and P W. 8 and 11 took up investigation. They collected the said answer scripts Exhibits P2 to P14 of A-1. They obtained exemplar writings and signatures of A-1 as per Exhibits P15 to P42. They also obtained the exemplar writings of A-2 as per Exhibits P43 to p46. Then the disputed answer scripts were sent along with the exemplar writings of A-1 and A-2 and signatures of a-1 to the handwriting expert P W. 10 who gave his report as per Exhibit P47 stating that the writings and signatures on the cover page of the facing sheet of exhibits P2 to P5 are of A-1. He also opined that the signa'ures purporting to be those of A-1 in the Invigilator's diaries Exhibit P9 were his He also opined that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 were in the handwriting of A-2. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the said offences against both the accused. He also opined that the signa'ures purporting to be those of A-1 in the Invigilator's diaries Exhibit P9 were his He also opined that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 were in the handwriting of A-2. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the said offences against both the accused. ( 3 ) THE learned High Court Government pleader took us through the evidence on record and urged that the evidence of the handwriting expert P W. 10 clearly proves that the answers in Exhibits P2 to p5 are in the handwriting of A 2, whereas they ought to have been in the handwriting of A 1 and so both of the are guilty of the said offences. On the other hand Mr. B M. Chandrasekharaiah for A 1 and Mr. S. P. Kulkarni for A-2 urged that in view of the differences pointed out by them in the exemplar handwiiting and the disputed writings of a-2, it is not safe to accept the opinion of the handwriting expert and hold that he said answer scripts are written by a-2. For the purpose of comparison, we requested the learned High Court Government pleader to get the enlarged photographs as they had not been made available to the lower Court by the handwriting expert P W 10. Accordingly, he was good enough to get the photographs of the admitted and disputed writing and make them available to the Court. The learned Advocates for the respondents urged that if the evidence of the handwriting expert is not sufficient to hold that it was A-2 who wrote the answer scripts, then the charges of conspiracy and forgery fail Mr Chandrasekharaiah for A-1 urged that as there is possibility of the answer scripts being inserted after they were received by the invigilators and before they were sent to the examiners by some body at the instance of some body interested in A-1, it is doubtful whether at all A-1 himself used the said answers while giving the answer scripts to the invigilators especially as the invigilators have not stated that the answer scripts were in the same condition when they received them from A 1 on the dates of examination. ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence regarding the conspiracy between A 1 and a 2. ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence regarding the conspiracy between A 1 and a 2. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of the handwriting expert P. W. 10 to show that the said answers were written by A-2. The prosecution wants the Court to infer that if A-1 has written the said answers, a-1 and A-2 must have conspired to forge the said answers. So, it has to be seen whether the evidence of the handwriting expert P. W. 10 clearly proves that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 are in the handwriting of A-2. With the help of the enlarged photographs we compared the disputed writings with the admitted writings of A 2 taken by the i 0. P. W. 11. We noticed differences in the words -world", "there", "as", "manufacturing", "the", "no", "man", "five", "we", "economic", etc , in both of them. So far as the opinion of P. W. 10 as regards A-1 is concerned, Mr. Chandrasekharaiah fairly stated that he does not dispute the opinion of the handwriting expert P. W. 10 in view of the admission made by A-1 before the Enquiry committee of the University and the report Exhibit P56 of that Committee. There is no other evidence to show that a-2 wrote the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5. There is also no evidence to show that the accused was seen anywhere near the examination hall on those dates by anybody. The evidence of the invigilators p Ws. 2, 3 and 4 shows that A-1 did not go out of the examination hall during the time of the examination and that there was no possibility of any outsider entering the examination hall. As regards the appreciation of the evidence of the handwriting expert in Shashi Kumar banerjee and Others v Subodh Kumar banerjee etc. , (A. I R. 1964 Supreme court 529), the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. ( 5 ) IN Murarilal v State of M. P. (A. I R. 1980 Supreme Court 531), after considering all the decisions on the point, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe thus : -"there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised irto a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated But having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. "in this case, after comparison of the admitted handwriting of A-2 with the disputed handwriting with the aid of the enlarged photographs, we find that the reasons given by the handwriting expert p W. 10 are not convincing and correct. There is no other corroboration to his evidence. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate was justified in discarding the evidence of P W. 10 and acquitting A 2. ( 6 ) SO far as A 1 is concerned, no doubt he has admitted before the malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee of the University that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 were not in his handwriting. But, from that alone it is difficult to conclude that it is A-1 alone who substituted those answers in his wrappers and gave them to the invigilators P. Ws. 2 to 4 especially as P. Ws. 2 to 4 have not stated that Exhibits P2 to P5 were in the same condition in which they are found at the time of the trial when they received them from A-1 after the time of the examination. 2 to 4 especially as P. Ws. 2 to 4 have not stated that Exhibits P2 to P5 were in the same condition in which they are found at the time of the trial when they received them from A-1 after the time of the examination. The possibility of somebody else interested in A 1 getting those answers subsequently written and substituted in the answer books at some time after the receipt of the said answer books from the invigilators till they were received by the examiner cannot be ruled out and the acquittal of A-1 also for the said offences with which he was charged is proper. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .