Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Forgery Case: Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 14 January 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 17

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a conviction for forgery be sustained based on handwriting expert’s opinion and circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a postman accused of forging a signature on a delivery slip. The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant had forged the signature, and whether the courts below correctly relied on the evidence of handwriting experts and circumstantial evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around a postal fraud that occurred in 1992. Dr. M.L. Varshney (PW-3) sent a registered envelope containing four Indira Vikas Patras worth ₹20,000 to Dr. K.B. Varshney (PW-1) on April 9, 1992. This envelope never reached Dr. K.B. Varshney. A complaint was filed on April 27, 1992, by PW-3, and subsequently by PW-1 on April 29, 1992, with the postal authorities. Investigations revealed that someone named “Mohan” had received the registry on April 13, 1992. Dr. K.B. Varshney’s son, Devesh Mohan (PW-2), denied signing the delivery slip when shown the signature, which was marked as “D. Mohan”. This led to the registration of a case under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The investigation was later transferred to C.B. C.I.D. The appellant, Padum Kumar, was the postman responsible for delivering the mail in the area.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Padum Kumar under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to four and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The trial court relied on the fact that the appellant was the postman responsible for the delivery and that the delivery slip was with him. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant, affirming his conviction. The High Court noted that the signature on the delivery slip differed from the specimen signatures of PW-2, and that the appellant, who delivered the envelope, failed to explain who signed the slip, leading to a presumption against him. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 467 IPC: This section deals with the forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It states, “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document which purports to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 468 IPC: This section addresses forgery for the purpose of cheating. It states, “Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not sustainable because the prosecution failed to prove that he had forged the signature on the delivery slip (Ex.-P4).
• The appellant contended that the lower courts erred in not considering the report of the Government handwriting expert, which was in his favor.
• It was argued that the report of handwriting expert Siya Ram Gupta could not be proved by examining his son, Ranjeet Kumar (PW-8), and that the courts below should not have relied on the opinions of the other handwriting experts (PW-5, M.Y. Khan).
• The appellant also argued that the High Court erred in raising a presumption against him and holding that it was his responsibility to prove who signed the delivery slip.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the courts below rightly convicted the appellant based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
• The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-2, Devesh Mohan, who denied signing the delivery slip, and the opinions of the handwriting experts.
• The respondent submitted that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is sustainable based on the evidence on record, including the opinions of the handwriting experts and the circumstantial evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant through the evidence of PW-2, the handwriting experts, and the circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the appellant was the postman responsible for delivering the mail, and the delivery slip was with him. The Court held that in the absence of any explanation by the appellant as to who signed the delivery slip, a presumption was to be raised against him, as he was the only person having knowledge of the same. The Court also noted that the evidence of the handwriting experts was used to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. The Court emphasized that the conviction was not based solely on the opinion of the handwriting experts but also on other evidence.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596*: The Court acknowledged the principle that expert evidence is weak and requires corroboration but found that the opinion of handwriting experts was corroborated by the evidence of PW-2.
• Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210*: The Court reiterated that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion but clarified that the conviction was not solely based on expert opinion in the present case.
• Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704*: The Court noted that corroboration may not be invariably insisted upon before acting on the opinion of a handwriting expert.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The Court placed significant emphasis on the fact that the appellant was the postman responsible for delivering the mail and that the delivery slip was in his possession. The denial of PW-2 that he had signed the delivery slip was also a crucial factor. While the Court acknowledged the principle that expert evidence should be approached with caution, it found that the opinions of the handwriting experts were corroborated by the other evidence on record. The Court also noted the lack of explanation from the appellant as to who signed the delivery slip.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the conviction was solely based on expert opinion. The Court also rejected the argument that the High Court erred in raising a presumption against the appellant. The Court reasoned that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted such a presumption. The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The evidence of PW-2 denying his signature in Ex.-P4-delivery slip is a valuable piece of evidence supporting the case of the prosecution.”

“The hand-writing experts – M.Y. Khan (PW-5) and Siya Ram Gupta have opined that the disputed signature-“Q-1” in the delivery slip-Ex.-P4 does not match with the specimen signatures-“S-1 to S-6”.”

“In the absence of any explanation by the appellant-accused, as held by the High Court, a presumption is to be raised against the appellant who delivered the envelope as he is the only person having knowledge of the same.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for forgery can be sustained based on a combination of handwriting expert evidence, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence.
• The courts can raise a presumption against an accused who fails to explain incriminating circumstances, particularly when the accused is the only person with knowledge of those circumstances.
• While expert evidence should be approached with caution, it can be relied upon when corroborated by other evidence.
• The responsibility of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt rests with the prosecution, but the accused also has a duty to explain incriminating circumstances.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless his presence was required in any other case, given that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for forgery can be sustained based on a combination of handwriting expert evidence, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence, especially when the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for incriminating circumstances. There was no change in the previous position of the law, but the Court clarified that the opinion of handwriting experts is only a corroborative piece of evidence and the conviction was not solely based on it.

Conclusion

In Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the conviction was based on a combination of handwriting expert evidence, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence, and not solely on the opinion of the handwriting experts. The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence, when coupled with expert testimony and witness statements, can establish guilt in cases of forgery.

Category:

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Forgery
• Criminal Law
• Expert Evidence

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for cases involving forgery?

A: This judgment clarifies that convictions for forgery can be based on a combination of evidence, including handwriting experts, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence. It also emphasizes that the accused has a duty to explain incriminating circumstances.

Q: Can someone be convicted solely based on the opinion of a handwriting expert?

A: No, this judgment reiterates that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion. The opinion of a handwriting expert must be corroborated by other evidence.

Q: What is the significance of circumstantial evidence in forgery cases?

A: Circumstantial evidence, such as the accused having possession of the forged document, can be crucial in establishing guilt, especially when coupled with other evidence.

Q: What does it mean when the court raises a presumption against the accused?

A: When the court raises a presumption against the accused, it means that the accused has the burden to explain the circumstances that point towards their guilt. If the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, the court can draw an adverse inference against them.