Case Summary
| Citation | Ram Narain v. State of U.P. (1973) 2 SCC 86 : AIR 1973 SC 2200 |
| Keywords | sec 45 IEA, opinion of experts, handwriting, two letters, kidnapping |
| Facts | On August 15, 1964 Mannu (5 yrs.) s/o Shri Gajendra Natth, an Excise Inspector was kidnapped. An FIR was registered. 501 Rs. reward was also announced for giving information. A post-card bearing post office seals dated 21 August 1964 and later an inland letter, bearing the date October 21, 1964 were received by Gajendra Nath demanding, in the first letter a ransom of Rs. 1,000/-, and in the second a ransom of Rs. 5,000/- for the return of the boy in December, 1964. On January 11, 1965 the child was recovered from the house of Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabushan Singh in village Pandeypur, district Kanpur. The investigation of the case revealed that Ram Narain, was also responsible for kidnapping and wrongfully confining the said child and that it was he who had sent the two anonymous letters demanding ransom. All the three persons were prosecuted under ss. 363, 468 and 384/511, of the IPC. Session Court acquitted Ganga Bux Singh and Chandrabushan and Ram Narian’s conviction by Trial court were upheld. This conviction was solely based on the conclusion that the two anonymous letters had been written by him. High Court also upheld conviction. The appellant having categorically denied his authorship of those letters, Shri R. A. Gregory, a hand-writing expert was produced in support of the prosecution case. Question raised before Supreme Court related to the legality and propriety of the appellant’s conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the hand-writing expert. |
| Issues | Whether person can be convicted solely on the basis expert opinion? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | 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. 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 be 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 the Court may accept the 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. In State of Gujarat v. Chhotalal Pitambardas,1964, court observed that the opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of s. 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. The opinion of a hand-writing expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution. But this opinion evidence, which is relevant, may be worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence relating to the document in question supporting the view expressed by the expert. Solely on the ground of expert opinion conviction of accused was upheld by Supreme Court. All the Court themselves ensures authenticity of hand writing. |
| Judgement | We, therefore, consider that on thefacts and circumstances of this case the ends of substantial justice would be amply met if we now reduce thesentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but also imposed fine of Rs 700 and in default of payment offine direct that he undergoes rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. We order accordingly. The appealis thus accepted in part as just stated. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
