Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed a postman’s forgery convictions but reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone, considering the 1992 occurrence and custody exceeding eighteen months. The conviction rested on the recipient’s denial, surrounding evidence and corroborative handwriting opinions, rather than expert evidence alone. On that record the postman’s failure to explain the delivery-slip signature supported the adverse inference. The conflicting government expert report was not relied upon because its author had not been examined.
Issues
- Whether the forgery convictions rested on adequately supported evidence and whether the imprisonment required modification.
Held
- Handwriting opinion requires cautious assessment of its reasons and the other evidence. Here the recipient’s direct denial of the signature was substantive evidence and the handwriting opinions corroborated it; the conviction was not founded solely on expert opinion. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The favourable government laboratory report could not be relied upon in this case without examination of its author; the accused had not summoned that expert. On the prosecution evidence and the appellant’s role in delivering the envelope, absence of an explanation for the signature supported the inference drawn against him. (¶¶ 13, 19)
- The evidence established that the registered envelope contained valuable securities and supported the concurrent forgery findings. The age of the occurrence and more than eighteen months’ custody justified reduction of imprisonment, without disturbing conviction. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Convictions under Sections 467 and 468 IPC affirmed; imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone. Appellant directed to be released unless required in another case; no alteration to the fine directed.