JUDGMENT B.G. Deo, J. - This is an appeal by the appellant - accused who was convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola (Shri S. K. Shah), by his judgment dated 22.10.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1986. No separate sentences have been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, against the appellant accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2: The learned counsel for the appellant accused Shri V.R. Manohar has vehemently challenged the conviction of the appellant, which is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, on the ground that the conviction is based merely on grave suspicion and contended that the suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. It was also contended by Shri Manohar that the conviction of the appellant is mainly based on opinion evidence of two hand-writing expense without much support from the other circumstantial evidence and that, therefore, the conviction should be set aside. 3. We have heard Shri V.R. Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Shri G.C. Choube, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State at length on the facts and circumstances of the case. We have maticulously gone through the entire record in the case and have also given our anxious consideration to the circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced before us on behalf of both sides. 4. The circumstances, under which the diabolic murder of the deceased Suresh, a nine year old boy studying in 3rd standard and the only son of P.W. 3 Ramdas Ramchandra Bihade, by throttling and strangulating him by means of a thin metallic wire, following his kidnapping and demand by an anonimous inland letter (article 7) for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to be kept in a block piece of cloth at an appointed place, as direct in the letter, for the release of the boy, has taken place, are reminiscent of a popular crime serial on a small screen. 7,000/- to be kept in a block piece of cloth at an appointed place, as direct in the letter, for the release of the boy, has taken place, are reminiscent of a popular crime serial on a small screen. The facts leading to the heinous crime may be briefly called chronologically from the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in support of the same as follows: P.W. 3 Ramdas Ramchandra Bihade, the father of the unfortunate victim Suresh is a resident of the village Warud Bk., tahsil Telharain Alcola district He is an agriculturist owning 16 acres of land. He has four daughters. The deceased Suresh, aged 9 years at the time of tile incident, was his only son. Suresh was taking education in 3rd standard. On the put skirts of village Warud Bk., there is a street light on the electric pole near the temple. The open space in front of the temple is often frequented by the villagers for an evening stroll and by the students for studying purposes. The incident took place on 28.2.1986 at about 8.30 p.m. Ramdas, the father of the deceased, was residing only a few houses away from the temple. At that time, P.W. 3 Ramdas along with Harishchandra Tathod (P.W. 7). Gangadhar, Mukund Bihade and two other persons, had gone near the temple premises of Lord Mahadeo and set there chit-chating. About 5 to 6 boys, including the deceased Suresh, were at that time sitting under the street light engaged in studies. At that time, Ramdas noticed that the appellant-accused Sanjiv kumar came there with a transistor in his hand, sat there for about 10-15 minutes and went away. Ramdas and his companions dispersed at about 10-30 p.m., when the boys including the deceased Suresh had already left the place. Ramdas went home, but did not find Suresh on the Cot kept in the open Courtyard where both of them used to sleep. Ramdas enquired about Suresh and learnt that Suresh had not returned by that time. As a Suresh used to go at time to his uncle's house for taking dinner and even for sleeping, P.W. 3 Ramdas did not take serious notice of the absence of Suresh thinking that he might have gone to his uncle's place and slept there. Next morning, he went to his brother's place and learnt that Suresh had not visited his house. Next morning, he went to his brother's place and learnt that Suresh had not visited his house. Ramdas then went to the school to enquire about Suresh and draw a blank. Further enquiries were made in the neighbourhood but Suresh was not seen by anybody. 5. P.W.1 Punjabrao Thakare, the brother-in-law of P.W. 3 Ramdas, a resident of Chinchkhed, came to know from a relation from Warud who visited him that Suresh was missing. They both searched for Suresh in the nearby village known as Varule, but in vain. P.W. 1 Punjabrao then straight-way went to Police Station, Telhara and, lodged a written report (Exhibit 7) at 5.30 p.m. on 1.3.1986 about the missing of Suresh from 8 O'Clock of 28.2.1986. P.W. 3 Ramdas then got a proclamation issued at about 4 p.m. by best of drums in the village through the village Kotwal about missing of Suresh. 6. P.W. 3 Ramdas, the unfortunate father of deceased Suresh, who was searching for his son in vain, received one inland letter (article 7), written in Hindi language, at about 4.00 p.m. It was signed in the anonimous name of one Bhimrao. Ramdas learnt from this letter that Suresh was in custody of the writer of the letter who was in need of Rs. 7,000/-. The letter commanded Ramdas to collect an amount of Rs. 7,000/-, put it in a black piece of cloth and place the amount beneath the Nim Tree of Vetal Baba on or before 2.3.1986. The person taking the amount was to be communicated the address of Suresh. The letter also contained a threat that Suresh would be murdered if the contents of the letter were disclosed to anybody else or to the police. This letter, which is the main circumstantial evidence and which, as would be presently seen, has been squarely connected with the appellant with his hand-writing by the opinion of two hand-writing experts, including the Government Hand-writing Expert, needs to be reproduced. The letter which is in Hindi is as follows: PARTI, RAMDAS RAMCHANDRA BICHARE, MU. PO. VRUL B. SA SALHARA JILA ACHOLA. MAHAR ASTRA RAJYA. The letter which is in Hindi is as follows: PARTI, RAMDAS RAMCHANDRA BICHARE, MU. PO. VRUL B. SA SALHARA JILA ACHOLA. MAHAR ASTRA RAJYA. 'JAI HO BHEEM' HAMARA PEEYARA DUBHAV RAMDAS BIHARE AKOT ISKO SLAM ISLIYE KI HAMARE KO IS VAKT RUPEY 7,000/- KI SAKHAT JARURATHE YE RUPEY AAP KISI KO YA POLEES KO BEELA BTAYE YE RUPAY BETAL MAHARAJ KA BINB KELIYE EIK RAKHE BHAGWAN KI BICHE AIK KALE KAPRE ME DALKAR RAKH DENE YE SAB RUPEY AAP TA. 28 SE TAREEKH 2 TAK RAKHENGE ISKELIYE SE HAMARAAADMI YE RUPEY SE AAYEGA AGAR AAP VE YA KISISE HAMARE AADMI PAR NAZAR RAKHNE KI KOSHIL KI TO AAPKE PIYARE BACHCHE KI LAASH KA PATA BHI NAHI MILEGA YE RUPEY PAANE KE BADA APKO TUMHARA BACCE KA PATTA BATAYA JAYEGA BRISE APPKA BACHHE JALAD HI LE JANA HOGA. AAPKA BABI DUMBHAV BHEEM RAO The inland letter (article 7) is dated 'Nil' but appears to have been posted on 1.3. 1986 from Telhara which was at a small distance from village Warud. When translated in English, the letter reads thus: "To, Ramdas Ramchandra Bihade, resident of Warud BK., Teluqa Telhara, district Akola (Maharashtra State). "JAI BHIM" Salutation to our dear enemy Ramdas Bihade Akot. The reason being that I am in badly need of an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. You should keep this amount, wrapped in a black piece of cloth, without disclosing the fact to anybody, including the police, beneath the Nim tree of Wetal Maharaj. The amount should be kept between the period 28th and 2nd. My man would collect the said amount from that place. In case you or anybody else tries to keep a watch over by man, you would not know even the where abouts of the dead body of your son. After receipt of the said amount, you would be informed the address of your son where from you will have to collect your son immediately. Yours intimate enemy Sd/- Bhimrao." 7. P.W. 3 Ramdas was mortally afraid and did not dare to approach the police or to share the contents of the letter (article 7) with anybody else, except with his cousin brother P.W. 10 Kashinath Bihade. Ramdas decided to comply with the demand contained in the inland letter (article 7) in consultation with P.W. 10 Kashinath, collected the amount of Rs. Ramdas decided to comply with the demand contained in the inland letter (article 7) in consultation with P.W. 10 Kashinath, collected the amount of Rs. 7,000/-, kept the amount in a black piece of cloth and both went on 2.3.1986 in the morning near the Nim tree of Wetal Baba. There is also a well nearby situated at a distance of about 5 to 6 feet. Having kept the amount at the appointed place. P.W. 3 Ramdas sat on the parapet wall of the well for some time to keep a watch. As planned by both, P.W. 10 Kashinath climbed over a mango tree and sat there keeping a watch. At about 8.30 a.m., the appellant-accused came there on a bicycle, parked the bicycle, went before Wetal Baba, bowed down before the dairy, had a look at the place where the money was kept and made enquiry with Ramdas as regards the purpose of his sitting, there. P.W. 3 Ramdas replied that he was waiting there for his bullock-cart. The appellant accused then went away. It appears that as the appellant had not touched the money at that time and had not enquired about it in particular with Ramdas, the Latter's suspicion was not roused about the appellant Sanjiv Kumar at that time. After waiting for some time, Ramdas went away. P.W. 10 Kashinath, however, continued to keep a watch by sitting on the mango tree upto 4.30 p.m. but none was seen by him near the temple of We Baba during that time after the appellant had left P.W. 3 Ramdas, while going away from that place, decided to hand-over the letter (article 7) to the police, got made a xerox copy of that letter to retain the same with him and went home. 8. At about 4.00 p.m., some villagers approached Ramdas and divulged the shocking news that dead body of his son Suresh was lying in the well situated in field survey No. 311 owned by one Madhukar Laxman Bihade. At the same time, the Police path of the village P.W. 2 Purandas Bihade also learnt from the villagers about the find of the dead body of Suresh in the said well. He, therefore, went to the well with some villagers and found the dead body of Suresh lying there which was subsequently identified. At the same time, the Police path of the village P.W. 2 Purandas Bihade also learnt from the villagers about the find of the dead body of Suresh in the said well. He, therefore, went to the well with some villagers and found the dead body of Suresh lying there which was subsequently identified. He posted one Kamdar at the well and prepared a report (Exhibit 9) and forwarded the same with another Kamdar to the police Sub-Inspector, Warud B.K., taluka Telhara. By this report, the police were informed by the police Patil P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade thus: "Suresh Ramdas Bihade aged 8 years the boy who was lost at about 8-9 O'clock on Friday, was found this day at 4.30 O'clock in the noon in the well situated to the southern side of the field Survey No. 3/2 owned by Madhukar Laxman Bihade. He is lying in the well in prone condition with his head on the southern side." This report was received by the Head Constable P.W. 15 Shankarrao Gopalji Rana of the Talhara Police Station. He registered the accidental death at A.D. No. 6/1986 and directed another Head Constable P.W. 16 Keshavrao Wamanrao Choudhary to visit the place and make an enquiry. 9. The Head Constable P.W. 16 Choudhary rushed to village Warud with some constables, found the dead body of the deceased Suresh lying in the well of Survey No. 3/2, arranged to take the dead body out, held an inquest over the same and prepared a Panchanama (Exhibit 13). P.W. 3 Ramdas and his brother Motiram identified the dead body as that of Suresh. The eyes of the dead body were closed, mouth was half open, tongue was partly protruding and some liquid was oozing out of the nostrils. There was some swelling on the left cheek. They also found swelling below the left ear and the central portion of the throat appeared to be reddish. As per the inquest panchanama, there was a small horizontal line on his throat. After the inquest the deadbody was sent to the Medical Officer, Akot for postmortem examination. 10. The autopsy was conducted by P.W. 3 Dr. Raut on the dead body of Suresh at about 10 A.M. on 3.3.1986. He found the following ante mortem external injuries on the dead body: Black depression on anterior side of neck about 0.3 cm. broad and 10 cm. 10. The autopsy was conducted by P.W. 3 Dr. Raut on the dead body of Suresh at about 10 A.M. on 3.3.1986. He found the following ante mortem external injuries on the dead body: Black depression on anterior side of neck about 0.3 cm. broad and 10 cm. long, transverse direction runs below thyroid, absent on posterior side of neck, extending from middle of lateral right side of neck to middle of left lateral side. Red thumb shaped mark on left side of thyroid on neck 3 cm. x 3 cm. Red mark at right side of thyroid on neck 4 cm. x 2.5 cm. Swelling below left ear on neck 6 cm. x 4 cm. Swelling below the left cheek 5 cm. x 4 cm. with abrasion of 2 cm. x 2 cm. On disection of injury no. 4, excess black blood seen in the inner tissue, excess ecchymosis was present 11. On internal examination, Dr. Raut found that the brain, lamyx and trachea ecchymosis were fully congested. There was no froth. Not a single drop of water was present in the lungs. The stomach contained semi-solid food. There was no fresh water present in the stomach. P.W. 5 Dr. Raut opined that the internal injuries were also ante-mortem and the death of Suresh was due to asphyxia which, in its turn, was due to throttling and strangulation. The post-mortem report (Exhibit 16) did not meet with any challenge during the trial. Since the evidence on record of P.W. 5 Dr. Raut as regards the external and internal injuries and the cause of death can be accepted without any demur and since the injuries, according to him, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the finding as regards the homicidal death of the deceased Suresh needs to be confirmed at this stage only. The death of Suresh was surely caused by throttling and strangulation, by using something like a thin metallic wire, by the assailant. Since there is no direct evidence of the murder, further circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence have to be adverted to. 12. The Head Constable P.W. 16 Keshav Choudhary, after having held the inquest and drawn the panchanama of the scene of offence (Exhibit 14), recorded the statements of some witnesses. Since there is no direct evidence of the murder, further circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence have to be adverted to. 12. The Head Constable P.W. 16 Keshav Choudhary, after having held the inquest and drawn the panchanama of the scene of offence (Exhibit 14), recorded the statements of some witnesses. During the enquiry made by the Head Constable P.W. 16 Choudhary, P.W. 3 Ramdas the father of the deceased produced the inland letter (article 7) which was attached under the seizure memo (Exhibit 24). P.W. 3 Ramdas lodged the report about the murder of his son Suresh by somebody at the Police Station, Telhara on 3.3.1986. In this report, a reference to the intimation of missing of Suresh from 28.2.1986 already given to the police, as also to the anonimous letter (article 7) received by Ramdas on 1.3.1986 demanding therein Rs. 7,000/- and directing him to keep that amount under the Wetal Baba Tree, was made. 13. P.W. 3 Ramdas, by this report, did not suspect anybody except his cousin brother Madhukar Laxman Bihade who, according to him, in the year 1981 had become envious of him (Ramdas) as he had not received any certificate of good work from D.S.P., though Ramdas had received, and had therefore threatened Ramdas with murder of somebody at some time. On the basis of this complaint filed by P. W. 3 Ramdas, an offence of murder was registered as Crime No. 17 of 1986 and the suspect Madhukar Laxman Bihade was arrested on 4.3.1986. Further statements were recorded during investigation including the supplementary statement of Ramdas and other witnesses. 14. On 10.3.1986; one Suresh Purandar, the son of P.W. 2 Purandar Bihar the village Police Patil, produced a similar latter of threat received by him. This inland letter (article 5) written in Hindi was attached under the Seizure Memo (Exhibit 27). The letter commanded Suresh Purandar to give a cash of Rs. 20,000/- to be kept in a black coloured cloth bag to be given to any boy who was to move with the bag from village to village and hand it over to the person who demands it. The letter also contained a threat that murder of Pravin would follows if the demand and instructions contained in the letter (Article 5) were not complied with. The letter also contained a threat that murder of Pravin would follows if the demand and instructions contained in the letter (Article 5) were not complied with. The letter (Article 5) which is in Hindi language needs re-production, which is as follows: "PRATI SHRI SURESH PURANDER BIHARE, MU. PO. V ASD B. TA SALHARA JILA ACHOLA. ACHOLA. 'JAI BHEEM' MAAF KARNA SURESH BETA TERA BCHA KISIBATHAM MOAT KA GHATUTAR SKTE HE. BADAPYARABACHCHAHA TERA BADA KAW BHI BECHARE KA PARISHAN HA. AGAR TERE BACHCHE KO HAMARE BAZAR SA DUR KARBE KE LIYE BEES HAZAAR RUPEY DANE HONGE YE RUPEY TUMKO AIK KALE KAPRE KI THAILI ME LEKAR KISI BHI BACHCHE KA HATH ME DEKAR TUMHARE GAON KE SABHI DHAROGE YE BACHCHA PASOAN KI THAILI LAKER GHUMEGA PAISA GAON PURA B SOYE TAK THEK VA KARBA SEEMA ISKE BAAD PAISA RAJEGAON. JALDGOAN AUR TELHARE LIYU PLAT BEROGA ME GHUMANA HOGA IS KOI BHI GHAON ME SE HAMARA AADMI PAISA LE JAYEGA HAMARE AADMI PAR NAZAR RAKHNE KI KOSHISH NA KARNA PULISH YA KISIKO KHABAR NA KARNA NAHI TO TERA BACHCHA HAMARE JALO KA KHITAVA NA DABANA AAPKA DUSMAN BHEEMROA When translated in English, the contents of the letter would be as follows: "To, Shri Suresh Purandar Bihade. resident of Warud Bk., taluqa Telhara, District Akola. "JAI BHIM" Forgive me Suresh boy. I can murder your son at any time. Your son is so lovable. Pravin is his name. If you want to save your son from my evil eye, you will have to pay Rs. 20,000/-. You have to keep this amount wrapped in black coloured cloth bag and hand it over to any boy who will move from village to village in all the houses. The amount has not to be checked till the round of the village is not over. Thereafter that boy will move with that black cloth bag to Hanegaon, Jasadgaon and New Plots area of Telhara. My man will be the money from any of these villages. Don't try to keep a watch on my man. Don't report the matter to the police or somebody else lest your son may not become the target at our hands. Your enemy. Sd/- Bhimrao." This letter (article 5) received by Suresh Purandar was also signed by the same anonimous person by name Bhimrao, styling himself as the enemy of Suresh. Don't try to keep a watch on my man. Don't report the matter to the police or somebody else lest your son may not become the target at our hands. Your enemy. Sd/- Bhimrao." This letter (article 5) received by Suresh Purandar was also signed by the same anonimous person by name Bhimrao, styling himself as the enemy of Suresh. The amount was also directed to be kept in a black cloth bag and the matter was not to be reported to the police. This threatening letter to Suresh was not complied with. Nor was an amount moved from village to village as directed in the inland letter (article 3). This letter as per the postal stamp, was posted from Telhara and as per the evidence of the police Patil P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade, the father of Suresh Purandar, the same was received by Sureshon 10.3.1986 itself by post. 15. Another interesting feature, to which reference would be made later at length, is that during investigation of this crime, the appellant accused Sanjiv Kumar himself had received an inland letter (article 11) bearing stamp dated 10.3.1986 of Ghodagaon Post Office, which the appellant produced before the P.S.I. P.W. 17 Deshmukh and which was attached by the latter vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit 28). This inland letter (Article 11), written in Hindi, reads thus: "JAI BHEEM PATHANKOT SANJUKUMAR BETA SAMAY KE TERE SA AIK KAM KARBA SAMTA TERE GHAR MAI AGAR KOI LARKA PAISA LAKER AAYE TO VO PAISA RAKH LEGA AUR JO PAISA LAKER AIK KALE KAPRE ME DALKAR TOM INDOOR KA LIYE RAVANA HONA. HAM AADMI YA AURAT PAISE KO TUMSE KAHTA HA MANGE TO DE DEN A KOI AADMI YA PULISH KO KHABAR PAHUCHAYE TUMHARE LIYE KHATRA KARSAKTA HAI ISLIYE YE HAMARA KAM JO IMANDARI SE KARE USE HAM KABHI BAIMANI NAHI KARTE. GHABRANE KIKOI BAAT NAHI YE KAAM TUM TAREEKH 17 SA 19 TAKNIBATLEN-A PAISE TOM SA MAJDAR AUR HANDSOME PARNEVALE MALUM HOTE HO. INDOOR JANE KE BAD KISI BHI LOJ PAR RUK JANA. TUMSEEDHI AKELA AANA KISIKO SATH NA LANA. AAPKA SHUBHCHINTAK BHEEMRAO When translated in English, the contents would be as follows: "JAI BHIM Pathankot Dear Sanjiv Kumar, I am asking you to do some work as I consider you to be my son. INDOOR JANE KE BAD KISI BHI LOJ PAR RUK JANA. TUMSEEDHI AKELA AANA KISIKO SATH NA LANA. AAPKA SHUBHCHINTAK BHEEMRAO When translated in English, the contents would be as follows: "JAI BHIM Pathankot Dear Sanjiv Kumar, I am asking you to do some work as I consider you to be my son. If any boy comes to your house with money, keep that amount with you and after having kept the money in a black cloth you should leave for Indore. One man or woman who would refer to the amount as "coupon" and demand it you should hand it over to him/her. In case the report is made to the police or anybody else, it would be dangerous for you. Therefore somebody whoever does this work of mine with honesty will not be cheated. There is no reason to be afraid of. You should complete this work between the period 17th and 19th. That way, you are intelligent and handsome. Stay at some lodge after reaching Indore. You should come there alone and should not bring any other person with you. Your well-xx wisher, Sd/- Bhimrao." 16. Yet another post-card, hearing the stamp of the post of Jalgaon Jamod dated 17.3.1986 and the stamp of Warudpost dated 19.3.1986, was received by P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade, the Police Patil on 19.3.1986. This post-card (article 6) threatened the Police Patil and eight other persons with dire consequences. This postcard also directed Purandar to remove statue of Shivaji, if he wanted to escape the consequences. The post-card (article 6) was also attached by P.S.I. Deshmukh during investigation vide Seizure memo (Exhibit 32). In Hindi, the post-card reads thus: "JAI BHEEM" PRATI, PURANDAR VI BIHARE, NIWASSTHAR: WARUL B.K. TELHARA JILA ACIJOLA. GOANW ALO KO HAM GOAN CHOD KAR JANE KO MAZBOOR KAR DENGE AB TUMHARA RAJ KHAT AM HO RAHA HE. TO AAB AAGE SE KATAL HONGE. VE. BIHARE PU., D. AN. RA. RA. SA. RA. GA. BA. HA. BA. TATHOD AA. BA. BIHARE AGAR AISA NAHI HONA DENA CHAHT A TO SHIV AJI KA PUTLA DATA DO" When translated into English, the contents of the post-card (article 6) would be as follows: JAI BHIM To, Purandar V. Bihade, Resident of Warud Bk., Telhara, district Alcola. We will compel the villagers to leave the village. Now your reign is coming to an end. Hereafter you would be murdered. V. Bihade, Pu. We will compel the villagers to leave the village. Now your reign is coming to an end. Hereafter you would be murdered. V. Bihade, Pu. D. N. R.R. S.R. G.N. H.B. Tathod. A.N. Bihade. If you do not want this to happen, you should remove the statue of Shivaji." Although the inland letter (article 11) allegedly received by the appellant-accused Sanjiv Kumar and handed over by him to the police on 11.3.1986, directing him to received the amount, take the same to Indore and hand it over the same to the person who would approach him with a code word "coupon-coupon", was in Hindi and was also signed by the same anonimous person by name Bhimrao, the evidence of two hand-writing experts, as would be seen later, shows that this inland letter (article II) is also in the hand-writing of the appellant himself which circumstance will have to be dilated later in the Judgment 17. During investigation, it struck to P.S.I. P.W. 17 Mr. Deshmukh, the Investigating Officer, that the contents of the letter (article 7) received by P.W. 3 Ramdas, the letter (article 3) received by Suresh Purandar and the letter (article 11) received by the appellant Sanjiv Kumar himself were strikingly similar and they were in the same hand writing. He, therefore, directed the investigating agency to collect the specimen hand-writing of various persons in the village, including the appellant-accused. He began to suspect the hand of the appellant-accused in the matter and directed P.W. 3 Ramdas to verify the specimen handwriting of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar collected during investigation with the specimen hand-writing contained in the inland letter (article 7), the copy of which was with Ramdas and get the same thoroughly examined by the hand-writing expert. P.W. 3 Ramdas, therefore, took the xerox copy of the inland letter (article 7) and the copies of the specimen hand-writing of the appellant-accused collected by P.S.I. Deshmukh (p. W. 17) to the private Hand-writing Expert P.W. 13 Trimbak Patil on 15-3-1986. The Hand-writing Expert and Document Examiner P.W. 13 Mr. Patil compared the hand-writing contained in the xerox copy of the letter (art. 7) which he marked as D-1, with the standard writing of the appellant-accused produced by P.W. 3 Ramdas which was marked as S-1 and gave his report dated 17-3-1986 (Exhibit 40) to P.W. 3 Ramdas. The Hand-writing Expert and Document Examiner P.W. 13 Mr. Patil compared the hand-writing contained in the xerox copy of the letter (art. 7) which he marked as D-1, with the standard writing of the appellant-accused produced by P.W. 3 Ramdas which was marked as S-1 and gave his report dated 17-3-1986 (Exhibit 40) to P.W. 3 Ramdas. The hand-writing expert came to the conclusion that the person who has made the standard writing S-1 has also written the disputed anonimous letter D-1, as both the documents reveal the same skill of writing, that both the letters agree in general writing - characteristics such as movement of writing, manner of commencement, letter formations, rhythm, idiosyncrasy, speed of writing and pictorial appearance. Shri Patil (P.W. 13) also opined that the similarities, when taken in combination, were sufficient to prove the common authorship of the two writings. 18. P.W. 3 Ramdashande 4 over this opinion of P.W. 13 Patil to the P.S.I. Mr. Deshmukh (P.W. 17) on 19.3.1986, who having confused the suspicion against the appellant - accused, proceeded further for investigation and arrested the appellant Sanjiv Kumar on the same day i.e. on 19.3.1986. 19. After his arrest, the appellant accused at about 4.00 p.m. made a statement before the panchas which led to the discovery and seizure, from the residence of the accused, of one wire bundle, one torch, one nut-cracker with which the aluminium wire could be cut and a piece of wire rounded on the rear side of the bullock -cart of the appellant-accused. The appellant was residing with his paternal aunt at that time. A piece of wire which was said to have been thrown by the accused Somewhere near the Nim tree was searched by the police, but in vain. A register produced by the accused was also seized under the Discovery Panchanama (Exhibit 30). The accused was then taken to the Police Station at Telhara, where the Investigating Officer P.W. 17 P.S.I. Deshmukh dictated to the appellant-accused the contents of the three inland letters (Articles 7, 5 and 11) received by P.W. 3 Ramdas, P.W. 2's son Suresh Purandar and the appellant-accused himself respectively and the contents of the post-card (Article 6) received by the Police Patil P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade and also dictated one independent paragraph. He got six copies each of these five documents prepared from the appellant-accused. He got six copies each of these five documents prepared from the appellant-accused. Thus in all 30 copies, six each of articles 5, 6, 7, 11 and the independent Paragraph, were got prepared in the hand-writing of the appellant-accused. On 20-3-1986, statements of some more witnesses were recorded and the opinion as regards the piece of wire sent to the Medical Officer was also called. On 28.3.1986, all the aforesaid 30 copies were forwarded to the Government Hand-writing Expert for his opinion through the Superintendent of Police. 20. On 7.4.1986, the Medical Officer opined to the effect that piece of wire similar to article 8 could cause the injury no. 1 i.e. black, depression on anterior side of neck about 0.3 cm. broad and 10 cms. long, transverse direction running below thyroid, absent on posterior side of neck extending from middle of lateral right side of neck to middle of left lateral side. The seized articles were then sent to the Chemical Analyser on 10.4.1986. 21. During investigation, some evidence was also collected to the effect that the accused was seen carrying empty gunny bag and later burning the same. After having completed the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant-accused was submitted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Akot, who having found that the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions at Akola. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola (Shri S.K. Shah), the appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges under sections 302, 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code framed by the learned Judge and claimed to be tried. The defence in a nutshell was that the appellant was arrested and falsely implicated. On suspicion, in the crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge received the prosecution evidence consisting of the unfortunate father of the deceased and other witnesses, including the evidence of the Medical officer as also the two hand-writing experts, namely P.W. 13 Mr. Patil private Hand Writing Expert and P.W. 14 Mr. On suspicion, in the crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge received the prosecution evidence consisting of the unfortunate father of the deceased and other witnesses, including the evidence of the Medical officer as also the two hand-writing experts, namely P.W. 13 Mr. Patil private Hand Writing Expert and P.W. 14 Mr. Dilip Kumar Ahiwale - The Government Handwriting Expert and State Examiner of Documents, Nagpur and came to the conclusion, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and defence, that the death of Suresh was homicidal and he, after having kidnapped, was throttled and strangulated by means of a thin metallic wire and thereafter was thrown in the well situated in the field Survey No. 312 belonging to one Madhukar Laxman Bihade. On the basis of the opinion evidence of the two hand-writing experts and a few other circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it was the appellant-accused who committed all the aforesaid acts. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as aforesaid, no separate sentences being passed against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against this order of conviction and, sentence that the present appeal has been directed. 22. We have heard the arguments advanced at length by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused Shri V.R. Manohar and also by Shri Choube, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. We have minutely gone through the evidence of the witnesses in this case. Needless to say, there being no direct evidence in this case and the conviction having been based on the opinion evidence of two hand-writing experts and other circumstances of the case, we are fully aware of the tests which the evidence must satisfy and the principles of law on the subject enunciated by the Supreme Court time and again. Needless to say, there being no direct evidence in this case and the conviction having been based on the opinion evidence of two hand-writing experts and other circumstances of the case, we are fully aware of the tests which the evidence must satisfy and the principles of law on the subject enunciated by the Supreme Court time and again. A recent Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 26-10-1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1989 (Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) reported in 1989 IV S.V.I.R. (Cr.) 51 which was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant accused, Shri V.R. Manohar, also refers to four cardinal tests which must be satisfied before the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence the tests are as follows: The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; These circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused should be inconsistent with his innocence." Bearing the aforesaid tests in mind, we proceed to analyses the circumstances one-by-one, find out the guilt or otherwise of the appellant accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, in his Judgment, enumerated and discuss about eight circumstances. We may briefly refer to those circumstances. 23. The first circumstance is about P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath Bihade having sighted the accused at about 8.30 p.m. on 28.2.1986 in the court-yard in front of the temple of Lord Mahadeo, at which time, the deceased Suresh and other boys were sitting under a street light engaged in studies. According to the prosecution, at that time, the appellant-accused was sighted by P.W. 12 Shriram Bhamburkar giving a signal by torch flashing it from a distance of about 100 feet. According to the prosecution, at that time, the appellant-accused was sighted by P.W. 12 Shriram Bhamburkar giving a signal by torch flashing it from a distance of about 100 feet. About this circumstance, the learned Trial Court has referred to the infirmity in the evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas and his companion P.W. 10 Kashinath about the omission of having sighted the appellant carrying a transistor in his hands at that time and also to the improbability of P.W. 12 Shriram identifying the person flashing a torch light from a distance of 100 feet at about 8.30 p.m. in the darkness. The learned Trial Court was" therefore, even doubtful about the first circumstance of P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath Bihade having seen the accused on the night of 28.2.1986 in the vicinity of the deceased Suresh. Assuming however that the appellant was so seen at the temple where the deceased was studying and even assuming that a torch-light was flashed from the house of the accused later, the prosecution story is not at all advanced, for the presence of the accused and the flashing of torch-light are things which do not prove that the appellant was responsible for kidnapping the deceased later in the evening. Many persons generally frashed the temple at that time and torches are flashed in the darkness from various houses without any particular motive or importance being attached to their. This circumstance does not even throw any light on the motive on the pan of the appellant to later on kidnap the deceased, as there is nothing to show that the deceased had become aware of the presence of the appellant or even could sight the torch light flashed from a distance of about 100 feet and could attach any significance to it There is nothing on record to show -that there was a meeting of minds between the accused and the deceased, for the former to give a signal and the latter to heed to it so that he could joint the company of the appellant. That the deceased who was missing from that time onwards does not, by itself, connect the appellant-accused with the fact of missing of Suresh, he (the appellant-accused) being in the vicinity of the deceased. That the deceased who was missing from that time onwards does not, by itself, connect the appellant-accused with the fact of missing of Suresh, he (the appellant-accused) being in the vicinity of the deceased. The learned Trial Court; therefore, rightly observed: "As such, even the first circumstance of Ramdas (P.W. 3) and Harishchandra (P.W. 7) having seen the accused on the night of 28.2.1986 appears to be doubtful." 24. The second circumstance is about the appellant having been seen carrying a gunny bag at about 9.30 p.m. on the night of 28.2.1986 by P.W. 10 Kashinath Bihade and P.W. 11 Ganpat Bunde. P.W. 10 Kashinath was returning home at about 9 to 9.30 p.m. He saw the accused with an empty gunny bag which the appellant-accused had held behind him. Kashinath followed the accused upto the cattle-shed of the accused. The accused went inside the cattle-shed and P.W. 10 Kashinath went ahead to his house. P.W. 11 Ganpat had similarly seen the accused passing by the road and going inside his house. The version of the two witnesses about sighting the accused with a gunny bag was found acceptable by the learned Trial Court, but to no effect. The Learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the circumstance could be said to have little bearing, since the agriculturists do carry such gunny bags and merely because - the accused was found carrying an empty gunny bag, it would not help the prosecution much. 25. Similar is the next circumstance about the accused burning the gunny bag in the morning of 1.3.1986. According to the evidence of P.W. 9 Tulshidas his cattle shed adjoins that of the accused. According to him, on 1.3.1986 at 6 a.m. while he was in the cattle-shed, the accused came there, took one gunny bag and burnt it There is no evidence to show that the gunny bag was used for carrying the dead body of Suresh to the well or to some other place. There is no evidence to show that the accused might have carried the dead body of Suresh to the well and thrown the same in the well belonging to Madhukar Laxman Bihade. This circumstance, therefore, was rightly not given any importance by the learned Trial Court. 26. There is no evidence to show that the accused might have carried the dead body of Suresh to the well and thrown the same in the well belonging to Madhukar Laxman Bihade. This circumstance, therefore, was rightly not given any importance by the learned Trial Court. 26. The next important circumstance about P.W. 3 Ramdas and his cousin brother P.W. 10 Kashinath having gone with money near the tree of Wetal Baba at about 7 to 7.30 a.m. on 2.3.1986, Kashinath having climbed the mango tree and sat on a branch of the tree to keep a watch at the place where the money was kept and Ramdas sitting on the parapet wall of the well, the appellant-accused having come there on a bicycle gone near the tree of Wetal Baba and going away from that place, after having a casual talk with Ramdas, has been discarded by the learned Trial Court on the ground that in the statements recorded on 4.3.1986 and 20.3.1986 both these witnesses had not referred to these facts. The learned Trial Court, therefore, observed: "All these are improvements and, therefore, the version of these two witnesses with regard to the fact of accused having gone to the tree of Wetal Baba in the morning of 2.3.1986, cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution." The omissions in this respect, in the first place, have not been properly proved and even assuming that they were omissions, they do not partake the nature of omissions impliedly amounting to contradictions or omissions significant enough to attach much importance. Having gone through the evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas, P. W. 10 Kashinath as well as P.W. 17 P.S.I. Deshmukh, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the story of Ramdas having kept the money beneath the Nim tree on 2.3.1986 and having had a casual talk with the appellant-accused was not worth credence. In his cross-examination, P.W. 17 P.S.I. Deshmukh stated thus: "Witness Ramdas Ramchandra P. W. 3 did not state in his statements dated 4.3. 1986 and 20.3.1986 that the accused had seen the money kept under the tree. In his cross-examination, P.W. 17 P.S.I. Deshmukh stated thus: "Witness Ramdas Ramchandra P. W. 3 did not state in his statements dated 4.3. 1986 and 20.3.1986 that the accused had seen the money kept under the tree. He also did not state before me in any of the 2 supplementary statements that the accused made enquiry with him and thereupon he said to the accused that he was waiting there for bullock-cart." A close scrutiny of the evidence and the omissions would show that two facts are not displaced - (1) that P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath in the morning of 2.3.1986 had gone near the Wetal Baba Tree and (2) although there might not be any significant talk with the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused had visited that place at that time and must have looked at the black piece of cloth containing money. The evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas in this respects may be reproduced: "Before that myself and brother Kashinath had planned that Kashinath should keep watch on me secretly as also the place where money was placed. While I was sitting on the well, the accused came there on bicycle. He parked the bicycle and went to the place where I had kept money, took Darshan and while taking Darshan he saw the money kept under the place. By standing at the same place the accused made enquiry with me as to how I happened to sit there. I told him that I was waiting for my bollock-cart. Thereafter the accused went away." The evidence of P.W. 10 Kashinath on this point is as follows: "At that time Ramdas told me that he had received one letter of Suresh and told me that we put the money under the tree of Wetal Baba". On the next morning at about 7 to 7.30 went to Wetal Baba under the mango tree and sat there. I was sitting there to keep Sunjiv Kumar v. State of Maharashtra watch on money. Thereafter Ramdas came there and kept money in front of percolate of Wetal Baba. That money was kept ramped in the black cloth. There is one well at a distance of 12 feet from Wetal Baba. Ramdas went to that well and sat on it. At 'about 8.30 a.m. The accused came there. He came there by bicycle. He parked the bicycle and went to Wetal Baba. That money was kept ramped in the black cloth. There is one well at a distance of 12 feet from Wetal Baba. Ramdas went to that well and sat on it. At 'about 8.30 a.m. The accused came there. He came there by bicycle. He parked the bicycle and went to Wetal Baba. He bowed down before Wetal Baba. Then he talked to Ramdas. Thereafter the accused went away. After some time Ramdas also went away. I however, continue to sit on the tree keeping watch on money upto 4 to 4.30 p.m. None came near the Wetal Baba during that time. At about 4.30 p.m. Datta Pandurang Bihade came to me and said that Suresh was in the well, and that I called there, I took money and went home." In his cross-examination. P.W. 10 Kashinath stated thus: "I also did not narrate to anyone before police recorded my statement on 20.3. 1986 the fact that on 1.3.1986 the accused had come for the Darshan of Wetal Baba." The omission about the accused coming for Darshan of Wetal Babaon 2.3.1986 in the morning was not disclosed to anybody upto 20.3.1986 by P.W. 10 Kashinath, while P. W. 3 Ramdas had not disclosed about the incident dated 2.3.1986 at all when his additional statement was recorded on 4.3.1986 and later on 20.3.1986. It may be noted in this connection that suspicion of P.W. 3 Ramdas was first centered on his cousin brother Madhukar Laxman Bihade and that appears to be the reason as to why he has not attached much importance to the presence of the appellant, his casual enquiry and his going away from that place on 2.3.1986, when he (Ramdas) was sitting on the well keeping a watch on the money after having kept wrapped in a black piece of cloth beneath the Nim tree. These omissions should not have been attached that much importance as the learned Trial Court did for more on one reason. The substantive evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath about having kept a watch on the money kept under the tree and their sighting of the appellant coming there on a bicycle and going away after a casual talk with P. W. 3 Ramdas fully accords with the probabilities of the case. The substantive evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath about having kept a watch on the money kept under the tree and their sighting of the appellant coming there on a bicycle and going away after a casual talk with P. W. 3 Ramdas fully accords with the probabilities of the case. The omission in this respect is also probable, for the importance that could be attached by Ramdas to this incident was not so attached either by him or by P.W. 10 Kashinath, for the reason that the suspect was somebody else at that time. It was only after the opinion of the two handwriting experts were received that the centre of suspicion was shifted from W.adhukar Bihade to the appellant-accused. The evidence of P.W. 3 Ramdas about his attempt to recover his only son Suresh, by parting with the amount of Rs. 7,000/-, was the most natural conduct of an aggrieved father and should not have been discraded by the learned Trial Court merely on the ground that the facts were not disclosed to the police during investigation. The omission to state a facts does not necessarily mean that the same has not taken place. It means that they can be explained by the fact that they were forgotten or had not struck to the deponent at the appropriate time. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that omission gets due importance only when it amounts to implied contradiction of the fact omitted. No such implied contradiction can be read in the evidence to the effect that P.W. 3 Ramdas and P.W. 10 Kashinath had not visited, with money, the tree of Wetal Baba and had not sighted the appellant there at that time. In fact the sighting of the appellant at that time, by Ramdas and Kashinath, assumes all the more importance as none else could have visited that place, except the person who had known that money was to be kept there as directed. In fact the sighting of the appellant at that time, by Ramdas and Kashinath, assumes all the more importance as none else could have visited that place, except the person who had known that money was to be kept there as directed. Differing with the appreciation made by the learned Trial Court in this respect, we are convinced that the aforesaid circumstance has been definitely proved and this circumstance unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant, nay, has the definite tendency to do so, for it can be only the appellant i.e. guilty person who alone was interested in visiting the place to get confirmation that the money was kept at that place. It was with caution that the guilty person i.e. the appellant-accused was moving and was not taking any chances. That is why it appears that he had not touched the money nor questioned about the money in particular to Ramdas and had left the place. This conduct on his part shows not only his guilty mind but also the caution with which he was moving, after committing the crime. The evidence of P. W. 10 Kashinath shows that by 4.00 p.m. as no other person came, he removed the money and went home. That is why there is no further evidence as to what happened to the money so kept. 27. The appellant-accused was arrested on 19.3.1986. He was interrogated and he led the P.S.I. Deshmukh (P.W. 17) and panchas including P.W. ‘ Nagorao to Warud to his residence. He produced one full-pant, one torch, one wire bundle, one piece of wire which was tied to the cart and one nut-cracker. According to the learned Trial Court, the evidence of P.W. 17 P.S.I. Deshmukh does not make it clear as to what statement the accused had made during the discovery of these articles. However, P.W. 8 Nagorao states that at the Police Station, the accused made a statement that he was ready to show the place where he had kept the bundle of wire, torch, nut-cracker and the full pant. It was after this statement that they went in a jeep with the Police Staff to village Warud and after they alighted the jeep, the accused led them to his residence. The bullock-cart was standing near the house of the accused. It was after this statement that they went in a jeep with the Police Staff to village Warud and after they alighted the jeep, the accused led them to his residence. The bullock-cart was standing near the house of the accused. A piece of wire was taken out from the rear portion of that cart by the appellant-accused. A search beneath the Nim Tree was made at the instance of the appellant, possibly for a piece of wire which was thrown by the accused, but nothing was found. Then the appellant led them inside the house from where the appellant took out one wire bundle which was kept hung on the rail of wall, one nut -cracker which was kept on the cup-board, one battery torch from the cupboard, and one full-pant which was kept hung on the wire inside the house. Although as per the medical evidence, a wire could have been used for throttling and strangulating the deceased, there is nothing on record to show firstly that the wire used in the crime was seized or that the bundle of wire or the nut-cracker or the battery torch or the full-pant had something to do with the crime in question. There is a faint suspicion that such type of wire may have been used. The fact of the discovery of the aforesaid articles is neither here nor there as they have not been connected with the crime in question as such, by either the chemical evidence or the medical evidence. We are of the considered view therefore that the fact of discovery or seizure of the aforesaid articles, apart from the discrepancy about the length of wire sent for medical opinion, is not of a tendency, much less a definite one. It is, therefore, a far cry to say that the seizure of discovery or the aforesaid articles points to the guilt of the accused and that too unerringly. 28. That leaves on record the only circumstance which is the most important one i.e. about article 7, the inland letter written by the appellant accused to the unfortunate father of the deceased Suresh on 1-3-1986 demanding therein an amount of Rs. 7,000/- and threatening to kill the deceased and the subsequent slaughter of the deceased. Added with this inland letter (art. 7), are the two other inland letters (arts. 7,000/- and threatening to kill the deceased and the subsequent slaughter of the deceased. Added with this inland letter (art. 7), are the two other inland letters (arts. 5 and 11) received by Suresh Purandar and the appellant-accused himself respectively, and one post-card written to P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade. Before we refer to these letters, it is necessary to find out whether the evidence on record is sufficient enough to conclude unerringly that these letters are in the handwriting of the appellant. We have perused the letters (arts. 7,5, 11), post-cart (art. 6), 30 specimen documents of the hand-writing of the appellant and the register seized by the Investigating Officer from the appellant-accused, along with the opinion of the two hand-writing experts i.e. P.W. 13 Mr. Patil and P.W. 14 Mr. Ahiwale to the effect that all the aforesaid articles were in the handwriting of the appellant-accused. We have also perused the reasons adduced by the two hand writing experts. Suffice it to say that the-considered opinion of the two experts to the effect that the letters are by the appellant deserve all the credence for the compelling reasons that they have adduced. Their opinion although subjected to cross-examination has not been shattered and has not cast any doubt on the acceptability of their opinion. Even the learned counsel Shri Manohar did not dilate on the authorship of the aforesaid letters as that of the appellant but only remained content that at best the letters would cast a grave suspicion against the accused but would not satisfy the tasks of proof by circumstantial evidence. According to him, the Courts have to be very about acting on the opinion evidence which, by itself, is a weak type of evidence. In support, he has relied on the decision in the case of Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohamad Is a reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1728 in which it has been observed that evidence given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence. The evidence of an hand-writing expert is considered to be of a frail character and the Courts have been warned to be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of hand-writing expert. 29. The evidence of an hand-writing expert is considered to be of a frail character and the Courts have been warned to be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of hand-writing expert. 29. In the case of Bhagwan Kaur v. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma and others reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1346, it has been observed that conclusions based upon mere comparison of hand writing must at best be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case. 30. In the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. The State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1091, having considered the up-to-date case law till then, it has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court thus: "It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps, none so with more caution then the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction." 31. In the case of Murarilal v. State of M.P. reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 531, the Supreme Court had again considered the question about that opinion evidence of handwriting expert and the need for corroboration thereof. In para 4 of the Judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the position absolutely clear, as follows: "An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to case a conviction solely on the opinion of a hand-writing expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion 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 observation, some error of promises 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." Referring to the opinion of the hand-writing expert, in para 6 of the Judgment. Their Lordships have observed thus: “Expert testimony is made relevant by S. 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Courts has to form an opinion upon a point as to identify of handwriting, the opinion of a person specially skilled in question as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S .114 which entitled the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S. 3) tells, that ' A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." In the aforesaid case, a writing made by the accused which was left on the table of the deceased on the night of murder connected the accused with the murder and that circumstance was coupled with the recovery of the deceased's watch at the instance of the accused. It was observed that in the absence of acceptable explanation, the circumstances were held sufficient to hold the accused guilty. There is, therefore, no doubt that a credible and acceptable opinion of an handwriting expert, without anything more, can be accepted. There is no need of further corroboration provided the opinion can itself sustain the guilt In the instant case, we have already referred to the evidence of the two handwriting experts which show that not only article 7, the inland letter received by P.W. 3 Ramdas, connects squarely the appellant-accused with the guilt of murder of the deceased Suresh but also the other letters (articles 5, 6 and 11) which afford circumstantial evidence of the conduct of the appellant-accused. Moreover, the handwriting of the appellant-accused has been proved without any shade of doubt. Moreover, the handwriting of the appellant-accused has been proved without any shade of doubt. Even the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Manohar could not canvass before us that the evidence of handwriting experts should be discarded and the letters are not to be held in the handwriting of the appellant-accused, The learned counsel merely happed on the case not going beyond the ambit of grave suspicion. Once having held that the appellant is the author of article 7 and the three other letters (articles 5, 6 and 11), a scrutiny of the contents thereof would at once reveal that a schemy mind as that of the accused had not only planned kidnapping and the diabolic murder of Suresh, but had translated the said intention into action and had tried to avoid the crime by diverting the investigation and by attempting to put the investigating agency in a blind allay by writing a similar letter of threat to himself so that the needle of suspicion hovering round of him may be diverted elsewhere. The common features of the four letters, apart from the hand writing of the appellant-accused, are as follows: All the letters administered a threat of dire consequences, They command the addresses not to divulge the contents of the letter to any other person, much less to the police; and The money demanded was to be kept in either a black piece of cloth or a black coloured cloth bag and was not to be handed over to the writer of the letter directly, but it has had to be kept somewhere else or with some other person or to be kept at an appointed place, as directed in the letter. A cautious scheme brain is revealed in a modus operandi. Article 7, the inland letter received by P.W. 3 Ramdas on 1.3.1986, is the key letter in this case. Its author has been held to be the appellant-accused. The contents of the letter revealed that the author was in custody of the child, the deceased Suresh, and that he (the appellant) could direct movement of the child as he desired. He could dispose of the child in any manner he liked. The corpus of the child was in his possession or complete control. The contents of the letter revealed that the author was in custody of the child, the deceased Suresh, and that he (the appellant) could direct movement of the child as he desired. He could dispose of the child in any manner he liked. The corpus of the child was in his possession or complete control. No other inference than that the author of the crime was the appellant and none else and he must have murdered the child is possible or probable. This inference is rain forted by the conduct of the appellant in writing a similar letter of threat (Article 11) to himself. When it was clear that the police machinery was after the appellant, somehow it had to be diverted. A similar letter of threat to himself was conceived by the appellant and received by post and it was seen that it reaches the hands of police. The deception did not work. The guilty mind lay bare. It dug its own pit. The inference is irresistible. It was the -appellant-accused who had written the letter (Article 7) to P.W. 3 Ramdas and the other letter (Articles 5,6 and 11) to Suresh Purandar, P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade and to the appellant-accused himself respectively, and was also the author of the crime. The other inland letter to Suresh Purandar (Article 5) also reveals that the appellant was after the blood of a child and was also after money. The investigating agency was banking on the support of P.W. 2 Purandar Bihade, the Police Patil during investigation. He also received a post-card (Article 6) for himself and eight other persons threatening them with dire consequences if they did not remove the statue of Shivaji. Removal of the statue of Shivaji was not possible at all. The threat that they were on the hit list was possibly calculated to deter then from assisting the investigation. All said and done article 7 admits of no other conclusion than that the appellant was the murderer of Suresh and had planned kidnapping and accomplished the murder by throttling and strangulating him. 32. The circumstantial evidence in this case is that of article 7 and three other letters showing the guilty mind and the presence of the appellant on the morning of 2.3.1986 near the Wetal Baba tree, where the money wrapped in a black piece of cloth was kept by P.W. 3 Ramdas. 32. The circumstantial evidence in this case is that of article 7 and three other letters showing the guilty mind and the presence of the appellant on the morning of 2.3.1986 near the Wetal Baba tree, where the money wrapped in a black piece of cloth was kept by P.W. 3 Ramdas. These two circumstances, by themselves, taken in conjunction with the circumstance of the guilty mind, revealed by the letter of the appellant (article 11) to self, for putting the investigation in a blind allay, lead to a definite inference of guilt of the appellant. The circumstance of article 7 is cogently and finally established by the unanimous opinion of the two hand-writing experts. The circumstances revealed by the letter (article 7) and three other letters (articles 5, 6 and 11), when read/in the light of the fact that Suresh was missing from the night of 28th and was found murdered on 2.3.1986, after P.W. 3 Ramdas' the father of Suresh, had received the letter (article 7) on 1.3.1986, are of such a nature that they do have a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant accused. The fact of kidnapping and murder, with the circumstances of the letter (article 7) and other letters (articles 5,6 and 11), taken cumulatively, forms a chain, although a small one, so complete that there is no escape from the 'conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the appellant-accused and none else. Originally, the suspicion was on one Madhukar Laxman Bihade who was arrested and was then let off as there was no evidence against him, while on the other hand, all the evidence was against the appellant-accused. The circumstances are, therefore, complete enough and are incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the appellant-accused. A bid was made by the appellant-accused by writing a letter to self (article 11) to get himself proclaimed as an innocent victim, like other villagers, Rather than proclaiming innocence, the said attempt has recoiled on himself by revealing the schemy and guilty mind and has reinforced the conclusion that the appellant alone is the guilty person and the circumstances are fully inconsistent with his innocence. 33. 33. The evidence has been scrutinised scrupulously by us not only because the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence but that the main circumstance against the accused was based on opinion evidence. Having regard to the onerous responsibility cast on this Court and having approached the case with circumspection, we are of the view that the guilt of the appellant -accused has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt by the circumstantial evidence and the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against him and the sentence imposed on him is just and proper and does not at all call for any interference. 34. The, appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned' Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on 22.10.1986 is hereby confirmed. The appellant-accused is directed to surrender to his bail bond/s before the learned Trial Court within two months from today. (Appeal dismissed)