Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1027 (GAU)

GHANASHYAM SINGH v. CBI

2015-08-13

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 16.02.2004, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2001 affirming the judgment of the Trial Court in C.R. Case No. 3552/98, convicting the petitioner under Section 468/471/420 of IPC and sentencing him R.I. for 1(one) year for each of the charge of the IPC with fine of Rs, 500/- for each offence, in default to imprisonment for 15 days is the subject matter of challenge in the revision. 2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the petitioner got himself recruited to the post of Constable in the R.P.F, N.F. Railway, Maligaon in the unreserved category by producing forged Madhyamik Examination Certificate and mark sheet. The C.B.I. on getting information from a source, registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and his father U/s. 120-B/420/468/471 r/w Section 109 of IPC. 3. During trial charge was only framed against the petitioner U/s. 468/471/420 IPC. The other accused, Sri Prabhunath Singh was discharged as there was no material against him. The prosecution has examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses. The plea of the petitioner was of total denial. There has been concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Court and ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere unless it is shown that there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice due to improper appreciation of the evidence on record or the evidence adduced by the witnesses was not considered in its true perspective or it was mis-read by the Court. 4. In the instant case, on scrutiny of the evidence, I have found that both the Courts below discussed at length the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and came to the finding that the petitioner committed the offence. There is nothing to show that any part of the evidence was mis-read or not properly appreciated. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Advocate submitted that no forgery was committed by the petitioner and the evidence of the handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence and his evidence being in the nature of the opinion evidence cannot form the basis of conviction without substantial corroboration. 5. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Advocate submitted that no forgery was committed by the petitioner and the evidence of the handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence and his evidence being in the nature of the opinion evidence cannot form the basis of conviction without substantial corroboration. He has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chotal lal pathi, reported in AIR 1967 SC 778 , wherein the Apex Court in Para 10 of the judgment observed as follows:- "Para-10. A Court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writing. It may not be safe for a Court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of comparison, but a Court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held that the sole evidence of an handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It was therefore, not right for the learned Judge to consider it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the complainant in a case like this, i.e., in case in which no handwriting expert had been examined in support of his statement". 6. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fakhruddin v. The State of M.P., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 , wherein the Apex Court in Paras 10 and 11 of the judgment observed as follows:- "Para-10. Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives treatment in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives treatment in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind s rendered unnecessary.The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a handwriting expert (S. 45) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus besides direct evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of hand-writings on a scientific basis. A third method (S. 73) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person". "Para-11. Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely he held that the two writings are by the same person. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely he held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that Court may accept that fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness". 7. The gist of the observation of the Apex Court in both the cases is that the opinion of the handwriting expert is relevant U/s. 45 of the Evidence Act but is not conclusive. It is open to the Court to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and then to compare with the disputed handwriting. 8. In the case in hand, both the learned Courts below not only relied on the evidence of the handwriting expert but also the evidence adduced by the other witnesses, more particularly, PW 3, Sri Sashi Bhusan Kumar Vidharthi, in-charge Head Master of Ved Narayan High School, Mohamadpur, Saran District of Bihar where the petitioner was prosecuting studies and PW 4, Sri Bikrama Singh, a Sectional Officer of Bihar School Examination Board, where from the petitioner passed his Board Examination. Both these witnesses brought the records of the School and Bihar Board of Secondary Education. 9. PW 3 proved Ext. 16 the Daily Attendance Register for Class VIII and of Section VIII for the year 1978 in which the relevant entry. Ext. 16(1) shows the name of the petitioner, Ghanashyam Singh bearing Roll No. 71. Ext. 17 is the Admission Register for the year 1978 for Class VIII where the relevant entry Ext. 17(i) shows the name of Ghanashyam Singh and in Column No. 5 of the Register the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 15.01.66. 10. PW 4 proved Ext. 18 Tabulation Register of District School Examination Board for the year 1983, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 15.01.66 vide Entry No. 18(1). Evidence of PW 4 is that in 1992 the petitioner appeared Secondary School Examination but failed and in 1983 he cleared the examination. The relevant document Ext. PW 4 proved Ext. 18 Tabulation Register of District School Examination Board for the year 1983, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 15.01.66 vide Entry No. 18(1). Evidence of PW 4 is that in 1992 the petitioner appeared Secondary School Examination but failed and in 1983 he cleared the examination. The relevant document Ext. 19 shows the name of the petitioner and his date of birth has also been shown. The handwriting expert PW 7, Sri Vinod Kumar proved the alteration in Ext. 10, original mark sheet and Ext. 11 original certificate of the petitioner and his evidence shows that the original figure 3' was subsequently altered to 8' by joining 3' in the middle. He also noticed marks of erasure and alteration below the figure 1972. The evidence of handwriting expert coupled with the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 established beyond doubt that the marks sheet Ext. 10 and the certificate Ext. 11 issued by the District School Examination Board were subsequently forged. In Ext. 10. the digit 3' has been altered to 8' to make it 1988 and in Ext. 11 also the same alteration has been made. The date of birth in Ext. 11 was similarly altered from 15th January, 1966 to 15 January, 1972. Although his School documents shows his date of birth as 15.01.1966, the date of birth in Ext. 11 has been altered to 15.01.1972. To satisfy myself, I have also gone through the forged documents and there is no doubt that the year of examination in Ext. 10 and Ext. 11 was altered as well as the date of birth in Ext. 11. The alteration (interpolation) are visible to the naked eyes also. Obviously the alterations were made to meet the eligibility criteria regarding age for the post of constable. 11. Both the learned Courts below thoroughly discussed both oral and documentary evidence on record and came to the findings that the petitioner committed forgery of the documents and he used the documents for his recruitment to the post of Constable in the RPF, N.F.Railway, Maligaon and by deceptive means he managed to get the job. All the essential ingredients of Section 468/471/420 IPC have been established against him beyond all reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned Courts below call for no revisional interference. All the essential ingredients of Section 468/471/420 IPC have been established against him beyond all reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned Courts below call for no revisional interference. There is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and as such, the judgment is affirmed. Sentence of 6 (six) months on each count, to run concurrently and fine of Rs. 200/- has been passed by the Appellate Court which calls for no interference by this Court. 12. Send down the LCR forthwith along with a copy of this judgment and order. The accused/petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within a month from today to serve out the sentence.