KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 26. 6. 1981 passed by Sri N. S. Gupta, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 628 of 1980. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in brief, was that on 17. 8. 1980 at 9. 00 a. m. one person got a double bed room (No. 207) booked in Jaiwal Hotel, Agra, disclosing his name as A. K. Sharma, resident of Benzi Gali, Delhi. After putting his luggage in the room, he went out side and returned after an hour with another person named as D. K. Sharma. Both of them, stayed in that room in the night and they took food and wine till 12. 00 in the night. Narain waiter served the food, wine etc. On 18. 8. 1980 at about 6. 00 a. m. , one of them demanded two cups of tea. Irfan waiter served the tea which was brought from outside. At about 8. 00 a. m. A. K. Sharma came to the counter along with his luggage and he paid the bill. He informed the Receptionist that his companion was sleeping and he will go by 11. 00 a. m. At about 11. 00 a. m. the room was opened by Iqbal and Irfan for cleaning the room and they found a person lying up side down in the bath room tub who informed about it to Gopal Narain, the informant. He found some injuries on his person and he appeared to be dead. The person who personated himself as A. K. Sharma had taken away the key of the outer room. The informant suspected the hand of A. K. Sharma in commission of the murder of his companion. He also detected blood on the bed. A. K. Sharma went to taxi stand on the rickshaw of one Ramji Lal. A F. I. R. was lodged at the police station Sadar Bazar, Agra, at 11. 00 a. m. on 18. 8. 1980 by Gopal Narain, one of the partners of the Hotel. ( 3 ) SHIV Shankar Lal Shukla, S. O. (P. W. 11) investigated the case and inspected the spot. A F. I. R. was lodged at the police station Sadar Bazar, Agra, at 11. 00 a. m. on 18. 8. 1980 by Gopal Narain, one of the partners of the Hotel. ( 3 ) SHIV Shankar Lal Shukla, S. O. (P. W. 11) investigated the case and inspected the spot. He found a dead body of a male person lying in the tub of the bathroom facing towards the ground in Room No. 207 of the first storey of Jaiwal Hotel Agra. The photographs were taken of the spot and the dead body. The inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent to Mortuary for postmortem examination. After completing the spot inspection he prepared a site plan. He also recovered one hair and prepared its recovery memo. He also recovered the blood stains from the floor and took into possession the bed sheet, pillow and other articles which were blood stained of which recovery memos were also prepared. He also recovered other articles such as a bottle of wine and a quarter of Boney Scot make, lead of tape recorder and one pair of shoes. On 19/8/1980 the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Raju Porter, Amar Singh Receptionist, Alwis Rijorio Telephone Operator, Ramji Lal rickshaw puller, tempo driver and taxi driver. Copies of the photographs of the dead body were sent to Police Commissioner, Delhi, Police Commissioner Bombay, S. S. P. Lucknow, S. S. P. Gwalior, S. S. P. (CBI) Lucknow and also to Editors of different Newspapers. The photo of the deceased was also published in the Newspaper for identify of that person. On 2/9/1980 Smt. Kusum Dubey came to the police station in the company of her younger to Manoj Dubey and handed over a letter dated 1/9/1980 which was endorsed by S. S. P. Gwalior. The photo of the deceased was shown to Smt. Kusum Dubey which was identified by her and her son Manoj Dubey and they told that it was the photo of Alok Dubey, who was son of Smt. Kusum Dubey. When the features of the accused were disclosed to Smt. Kusum Dubey she told that the person having that feature tallied to a Doctor who happened to be a friend of Alok Dubey and that Doctor was living in Mohalla Murar of Gwalior City. The 1. 0. When the features of the accused were disclosed to Smt. Kusum Dubey she told that the person having that feature tallied to a Doctor who happened to be a friend of Alok Dubey and that Doctor was living in Mohalla Murar of Gwalior City. The 1. 0. accompanied Smt. Kusum Dubey and reached Gwalior and sought help of the police at Gwalior. He also recorded the statement of Smt. Kusum Dubey and searched for the accused and returned to Agra with him where he was interrogated about the crime. Firstly he refused to disclose anything. Thereafter he disclosed his complicity in the crime. The Investigating Officer took the specimen handwriting of the accused in the presence of Shobha Ram and Kundan Lal at the police station. The entry made in the hotel Register by the accused was sent along with the specimen handwriting of the accused for comparison to the handwriting expert. The accused was made baparda and was lodged in the police lockup on 3. 9. 1980 at 4. 35 p. m. Thereafter the accused was sent to jail baparada. The appellant was put up for identification and he was identified by Amar Singh (P. W. 2), Irfan (P. W. 3), Narain (P. W. 8) and Raju (P. W. 6) in the test identification parade held on 10. 9. 1980 by P. W. 5 A. P. Srivastava. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge after going through the evidence on record held the accused-appellant guilty of the offence charged and accordingly he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the only evidence against the appellant was of identification by Amar Singh (P. W. 2), Irfan (P. W. 3), Raju (P. W. 6) and Narain (P. W. 8 ). The learned counsel further pointed out that learned Sessions Judge has himself not relied upon that evidence. He also pointed out that the appellant was taken to the hotel where he was shown to the witnesses and some of the witnesses have admitted that fact. Amar Singh (P. W. 2), the Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator of the hotel, deposed that he identified the appellant in the test identification parade held in the District Jail, Agra. The appellant was not known to him from before. For the first time he saw the appellant on 17. 8. 1980 when he came to the hotel. Amar Singh (P. W. 2), the Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator of the hotel, deposed that he identified the appellant in the test identification parade held in the District Jail, Agra. The appellant was not known to him from before. For the first time he saw the appellant on 17. 8. 1980 when he came to the hotel. He again saw the accused after 15 or 16 days when police brought him from Gwalior and thereafter he identified him in the test identification parade. This witness was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the State counsel. The witness denied to have made any statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He again admitted that the accused was brought in custody from Gwalior and he was shown to him at the police station. He got an information at the hotel that the police had brought a person at the hotel and on that information he went to the police station. P. W. 3 Irfan stated that he was on duty from 6. 00 a. m. to 3. 00 p. m. as waiter in the hotel on 17. 8. 1980. The accused in dock came in the hotel at about 9. 00 a. m. and got Room No. 207 booked. At that time he was carrying with him a brief-case and a tape recorder. He served water and complete to him. The accused after taking bath went out of the Hotel at about 10. 00 a. m. and returned to Hotel at about 11 or 12. 00 in the noon. At that time another person, who was found dead subsequently, was in his company. He served food etc. to them. Both of them also took liquor. Next day in the morning he was asked for two cups of tea. When he reached with the cups of tea which he brought from outside the accused was sitting on a chair and the water was flowing from tap in the bath room which was bolted from inside. He was asked by the accused for the bill and to take his luggage to counter. Raju porter brought his luggage to the lounge from the room. He told the operator that his companion was sleeping who may not be disturbed till 11. 00 a. m. and taken he went away. He was asked by the accused for the bill and to take his luggage to counter. Raju porter brought his luggage to the lounge from the room. He told the operator that his companion was sleeping who may not be disturbed till 11. 00 a. m. and taken he went away. When room was opened, he found that the companion of the accused was lying in the tub of the bath room up side-down and he was dead. The owner of the hotel was informed, who also came to the room to see him. He further stated that he had gone to District Jail, Agra where he identified the accused in the test identification parade. The witness admitted that the day on which the accused was brought from Gwalior by the police, a police vehicle was parked in the hotel and there was a rumour that the accused had been arrested. At that time police personnel were present there and the accused was sitting in that police vehicle. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY P. W. 6 Raju Porter-cum-Sweeper stated that the accused standing in the dock got booked Room No. 207 of the Hotel on 17. 8. 1980 at 9. 30 a. m. He brought the luggage of the accused from the lounge to room. The accused had an attached and one tape recorder but on the next day at 8. 00 a. m. he brought the luggage of the accused person from the room to the Counter of the hotel. He identified the accused in Jail. Narain P. W. 8 stated that he was waiter in the hotel. He saw two persons going to room No. 207 on 17. 8. 1980. They placed the order for Tandoori chicken, vegetable cutlet etc. They were taking whisky. He served the food at about 11. 15 p. m. On the next day he heard that some person had died and found that he was the person to whom he had served food in the night. He saw the accused for the first time in the hotel when he served the food. Thereafter he identified the accused in the test identification parade which was held in the District Jail, Agra. He admitted that when the accused was arrested he saw him at the police station. He saw the accused for the first time in the hotel when he served the food. Thereafter he identified the accused in the test identification parade which was held in the District Jail, Agra. He admitted that when the accused was arrested he saw him at the police station. The learned Sessions Judge made observation that he was unable to attack any importance to the fact that the accused was shown by the police to the witnesses before identification proceedings and that the identification proceedings were meaningless on that score and that it was not possible for him to discard the solemn testimony of the witnesses simply on the basis that that witnesses had an opportunity of seeking the accused at the time when the accused was brought from Gwalior to Agra. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Sessions Judge has not relied on the identification test. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the testimony of the witnesses who attended the accused in the hotel when he stayed along with the deceased. The evidence of those witnesses cannot be accepted against the accused-appellant. ( 7 ) WE have given our anxious thought to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The accused was seen on 17. 8. 1980 and 18. 8. 1980 in the morning. Admittedly accused was not known to them prior to that time. It would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses who stated in the court that it was the accused whom they saw in the Hotel without corroboration of the identification evidence, as in the present case identification evidence is not reliable and cannot be accepted against the accused for the reason that the accused was shown to the witnesses after his arrest. Now remains the testimony of the witnesses who claim to have seen the accused in the hotel for the first time and then in the court. The Supreme Court has laid down the rule of law in the case of Kanan and others v. State of Kerala wherein it has been held that it is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused, who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous test of identification parade to test his powers of observations. In the present case identification evidence of witnesses cannot be accepted against the accused-appellant inasmuch as the probability that the appellant was shown to the witnesses after his arrest cannot be ruled out and we are unable to place any implicit reliance on their testimony which remains uncorroborated by the evidence of identification. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel next pointed out another piece of evidence against the accused-appellant which is an entry made in the Register of the Hotel which was sent with the specimen handwriting of the accused to the Handwriting Expert and P. W. 12 Prakash Chandra Pathak, handwriting expert, who compared the specimen handwriting of the appellant and the entry made in the Register of the hotel, opined that the entry made in the Register was of the same person whose specimen handwriting was taken. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the specimen handwriting was taken by the Investigating Officer at the police station when the accused was baparda. In this connection the learned counsel drew our attention to the statement of P. W. 10. Shobha Ram who admitted in his examination-in-chief that one constable informed him that he was called by Sub Inspector. He went to police station where he found the accused sitting baparda. Paper Nos. 32 Kha 9 to Kha 14 were got written from that accused in his presence. The accused has denied the specimen handwriting as his own and it is not proved as to whose specimen handwriting was obtained which was compared with the entry made in the Hotel Register. The specimen handwriting of the accused could have been taken in the presence of the Magistrate when the accused was produced before him. No reliance can therefore, be placed on the evidence of Handwriting Expert. Moreover, the evidence of expert is only an opinion which cannot take place of substantive evidence. Secondly P. W. 12 Prakash Chandra Pathak handwriting expert admitted in his statement that he had not taken any diploma in Handwriting Examination from any University. He only got two years training in the Department. Formation of few of the letters in the specimen handwriting did not tally with the letters of the entry made in the Hotel Register. Specimen handwriting of the accused was not sealed in his presence. The writing could be immitated. He only got two years training in the Department. Formation of few of the letters in the specimen handwriting did not tally with the letters of the entry made in the Hotel Register. Specimen handwriting of the accused was not sealed in his presence. The writing could be immitated. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert, which is only an opinion and not a substantive evidence. ( 9 ) WE have given our anxious thought to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that in the present case the specimen handwriting was taken by the 1. 0. at the police station when accused was in custody and according to the statement of P. W. 10 Shobha Ram the accused was baparda even at the time when his specimen handwriting was taken. The specimen handwriting was taken by the 1. 0. on 3. 9. 1980. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on 4. 9. 1980. The Investigating Officer had an opportunity to get the specimen hand writing from the accused in the presence of the Magistrate when he was produced before him for sending to jail. The prosecution has not been able to prove successfully that it was the accused whose handwriting specimen was taken inasmuch as the statement of P. W. 10 Shobha Ram clearly indicates that the specimen handwriting was taken of the person who was baparda and he was unable to identify the person whose specimen handwriting was taken in his presence. Now the question that is to be determined is as whose specimen handwriting was taken by the Investigating Officer at the police station, particularly in the circumstances when the investigation was not fair after the arrest as the ace used was taken to the Hotel and was shown to the witnesses there. Thereafter he was shown to some of the witnesses at the police station and was then put up for identification in jail. We are unable to place any implicit reliance on the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the specimen handwriting taken was of the accused-appellant and not of any other person. Thereafter he was shown to some of the witnesses at the police station and was then put up for identification in jail. We are unable to place any implicit reliance on the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the specimen handwriting taken was of the accused-appellant and not of any other person. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out from the statement of the handwriting expert Prakash Chandra Pathak (P. W. 12) that the formation of some of the letters in the specimen handwriting was not identical to the letter of the entry made in the Hotel Register by the person who stayed in the Hotel on 17. 8. 1980. For placing reliance on the opinion of the handwriting expert Supreme Court in the case Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, has held that:it is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution that the opinion of a Handwriting Expert. There is a profusion of precidential authority which holds that is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U. P. , A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis of conviction but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal external evidence. " ( 10 ) IN view of the facts stated above, we are unable to place any reliance on the expert opinion to sustain the conviction of the appellant especially when we could not lay hand on any other evidence on record which may corroborate the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. Moreover, in the present case it is difficult to hold that the specimen writing was taken from the present appellant at the police station particularly when the Investigating officer had an opportunity to obtain specimen handwriting of the accused in the presence of the Magistrate when he was produced before him. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and hence he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and hence he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussions this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 26. 6. 1981 passed by the Vth Addi. Sessions Judge, Agra, is set aside. The appellant Baldeo Kumar is held not guilty of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and is acquitted of the same. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. .