CASE ANALYSIS ON ARJAN SINGH V.

HAZARA SINGH
CITATION: (1980) 1 SCC 613
HONBLE JUDGES/CORAM: A. D. Koshal and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.
APPELLANT: Arjan Singh
RESPONDENT: Hazara Singh
STATUTED INVOLVED:
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc
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 purporting to be
an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance 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 471: Using as genuine a forged document
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has
reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such document.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court by which the High
Court reversed the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under Sections467 and 471
of the Indian Penal Code to two years imprisonment. One of the respondents before the High
Court, Bachan Singh, died and the appeal against him has abated. The charges of forgery
against the accused persons were based on a will stated to have been executed by Sahib Singh
in favour of Arjan Singh and others in respect of the property mentioned in the will. There is
no direct evidence of forgery at all and the conviction is founded upon the evidence given by

an expert who had opined that the thumb impression on the will in question did not tally with
the admitted thumb impression of Sahib Singh. The expert was examined before the trial
Court and his testimony was both slip-shod and cryptic. For these reasons, the High Court reexamined him and gave an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine this witness. The
expert admits that he had examined the documents for 2-3 minutes and has pointed out
important dissimilarities between the disputed thumb impressions and the admitted thumb
impressions. He further admits that both the thumb impressions are similar in that the
numbers of ridges are the same on both the thumb impressions. Delta is also present in both
the thumb impressions. In his cross-examination had admitted that the dissimilarities could
have been caused due to the pressure of the ink or other factors. The defence examined three
experts all of whom opined that the disputed thumb impression fully tallied with the thumb
impression of Sahib Singh.
ISSUES INVOLVED:
The question before the Court was to determine if there are minor discrepancies in the thumbimpressions of the victim and if identified by the legal expert is important or not, and also the
relevance of the testimony of an expert.
JUDGMENT:
The Court examined the thumb impression concerned and was unable to find any positive
dissimilarity between them. If there is any superficial dissimilarity that can easily be
explained because of the following factors:
1. The inks with which the thumb impressions are taken in the two documents are different;
2. The angle from which the thumb impression has been taken in the two documents and the
size thereof are different
The thumb impression in the first exhibit appears to have been taken by printer ink and is
clearer than the thumb impression of the second exhibit which is taken by pad ink. Otherwise
there is no vital difference between the two thumb impressions. Having regard to the
evidence of the experts on one side and that of the witnesses on the other, it is really a
question of oath against oath. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to convict the
appellant on such a conflicting state of the evidence.

The Supreme Court held that, The Sessions Judge had rightly found that in view of the
conflicting state of evidence produced by the prosecution, it was unsafe to convict the
appellant of the offence of forgery. The High Court does not appear to have given any cogent
reasons for disbelieving this finding of the trial Court and was, therefore, in error in
reversing the acquittal on the basis of some suspicious circumstances only. For these
reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the
appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
ANALYSIS:
In this case the thumb impression of the maker of the will was in question, which were said to
be forged by the accused in order to turn the will in his favour. The Sessions Court in this
context acquitted the accused on the basis of lack of evidence and those which were produced
were in favour of the accused, but the High Court convicted the accused on the basis of an
expert witness who examined the exhibits and said that there were discrepancies in the thumb
impressions on both of them. Expert witness is mentioned under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 which goes as follows:
45. Opinions of experts
When the Court has to form and opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as
to identity of handwriting 30[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 31[or in questions as to identity of
handwriting] 30[or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court on the basis that the evidence
which were produced in regard to the convict the accused were not in favour of the case as
the discrepancies which were caused were not deliberate but superficial in nature which
might have been caused due to the difference of the ink used and the angle of the thumb
during the process. Therefore, the accused were released and their conviction was quashed on
the basis that the accusations upon them were wrong.
LEGAL FINDINGS:

The above case of Arjan Singh v. Hazara Singh was mentioned in the case of Republic of
India v. Ashok Kumar Maity1 which is a Orissa High Court judgment dealing with the
same issue.

The sections in this case were, offence committed punishable under Section 420 read with
Sections 511, 467 read with Sections 471 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Held, in
instant case, there was no evidence regarding the authorship of indicating the deposit of Rs.
6,300/- and had correctly concluded that it had not been established by the prosecution
legally and by satisfactory evidence that the Respondent was the author of the writings in
the withdrawal slip. Therefore in this case it had to be proved that the handwriting had to
be matched from that on the slip, and for the same an expert was being consulted, who
affirmed that the writing was not of the writer of the slip. The Court in this held that,
13. The learned appellate Judge has referred to the findings recorded by the trial court
about the paucity of evidence from the side of the prosecution through its witnesses minus
the evidence of the Handwriting Expert referred to above with regard to the authorship of
the writings in the slip and has correctly looked for corroboration with regard to the
writings in the same purported to be those of the Respondent in the light of the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab 2; Arjan Singh and
Ors. v. Hazara Singh3 and Murarilal v. State of M.P4. As held in the last-mentioned case,
there is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law
that opinion evidence of a Handwriting Expert must never be acted upon unless
substantially corroborated, but having regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution and in appropriate
cases, corroboration may be sought. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
the science of identification of finger print has attained more perfection while the science
of identification of handwriting is not so perfect and there is risk of an incorrect opinion.
1 62 (1986) CLT 685
2 AIR 1977 S.C. 1091
3 AIR 1979 S.C. 1236
4 AIR 1980 S.C. 531

14. In a case of this nature, no order of conviction should be recorded solely on the
testimony of the Expert with regard to the alleged writings of the Respondent in Ext. 7. The
learned appellate Judge has considered the halting and hesitating evidence of the
prosecution witnesses other than P.W. 14 with regard to the authorship of the writings in
Ext. 7 and having taken note of the findings recorded by the trial court based on
conjectures, has held, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, that there is no
evidence regarding the authorship of Ext. 4 indicating the deposit of Rs. 6,300/- and has
correctly concluded that it has not been established by the prosecution legally and by
satisfactory evidence that the Respondent was the author of the writings in the withdrawal
slip (Ext. 7). The learned Counsel for both the sides are agreed that if this finding recorded
by the appellate court with regard to the writings on Ext. 7 is accepted, the charges cannot
be said to have been established. A reasonable view has been taken by the learned
appellate Judge that it has not been established that writings in Ext. 7 were those of the
Respondent.
15. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
A copy of the judgment is being attached as Annexure-1:
JUDGMENT: ARJAN SINGH v. HAZARA SINGH (1980) 1 SCC 613
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court dated 24-111973 by which the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them
under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code to two years R.I. on each count.
Sentences were to run concurrently. One of the respondents before the High Court, Bachan
Singh, died and the appeal against him has abated. The charges of forgery against the accused
persons were based on a Will exhibit PD stated to have been executed by Sahib Singh in
favour of Arjan Singh and others in respect of the property mentioned in the Will. There is no
direct evidence of forgery at all and the conviction is founded upon the evidence given by the
expert P.W. 7 Bhakhtawar Singh who had opined that the thumb impression on Exh. PD did
not tally with the admitted thumb impression of Sahib Singh on Exh. PA. Bhakhtawar Singh
was examined before the trial Court and his testimony was both slip-shod and cryptic. For
these reasons, the High Court in appeal re-summoned Bhakhtawar Singh and re-examined
him and gave an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine this witness. Having gone

through the evidence of the expert, we are unable to place any reliance on this witness. To
begin with, he admits that he has examined the documents for 2-3 minutes and has pointed
out important dissimilarities between the disputed thumb impressions and the admitted thumb
impressions. He further admits that both the thumb impressions are similar in that the number
of ridges are the same on both the thumb impressions. Delta is also present in both the thumb
impressions. He also found that there was a curve in the forming of the delta. But in his crossexamination ha admits that dissimilarities could be caused particularly in the curve of the
delta by pressure of ink or such other factOrs. The defence examined three experts viz. D.W.
4 Philip Hardless, D.W. 5 A. S. Bal and D.W. 9 Rattan Lal, all of whom opined that the
disputed thumb impression fully tallied with the thumb impression of Sahib Singh on Ex.
P.A. We have also examined the thumb impression concerned and we are unable to find any
positive dissimilarity between them. If there is any superficial dissimilarity, that can easily be
explained because of the following factors:
1. The inks with which the thumb impressions are taken in the two documents are different;
2. The angle from which the thumb impression has been taken in the two documents and the
size thereof are different,
2. The thumb impression Exh. PA appears to have been taken by printer ink and is clearer
than the thumb impression of Ex. PD which is taken by pad ink. Otherwise in other respects
we do not find any vital difference between the two thumb impressions. At any rate, having
regard to the evidence of the experts on one side and that of P.W. 7 on the other, it is really a
question of oath against oath. In these circumstances, we are unable to convict the appellant
on such a conflicting state of the evidence. It has not been pleaded by the prosecution that the
thumb impression was that of deceased Sahib Singh which might have been taken on Ex. PD
after his death. Nor was such averment made in the complaint nor any cross-examination
directed towards that effect. Mr. Manchanda strongly relied on certain circumstances
mentioned by the High Court as creating suspicion on the genuineness of the Will. The High
Court observed thus:
Sahib Singh executed Will Exhibit PB, the gift deed Ext. PA and the Will Exhibit PC which
were unregistered. In the Will Exhibit PD is unregistered. In the earlier Wills and Gift the
description of the property was given but no description of the property is there in Exhibit
PD. There is no reference of the previous Wills in the Will Exhibit PD although it is in respect
of the whole of the property of Sahib Singh. Sahib Singh did not revoke his earlier two Wills,

which is inconsistent with his conduct. The mutation proceedings, after the death of Sahib
Singh had started on 29-4-1962 but Arjan Singh mentioned the existence of the Will Exhibit
PD for the first time on 30-12-1933 before the Assistant Collector II Grade in the statement,
Exhibit PL. Even on 30-12-1963, the Will, Exhibit PD was not produced. The will was
produced before the Collector on 8-2-1964. Arjan Singh, in his statement Exhibit PL, stated
that the Will was written in his village but in the Court he deposed that the Will was scribed
in village Kheri Nodh Singh. In Exhibit PL dated 30-12-1963, Arjan Singh stated that the
Will was scribed four years back but the will itself is purported to have been written on 8-21961. All these circumstances indicate that the Will Exhibit PD came into being after the
death of Sahib Singh. In view of the discussion above, we find that Will, Exhibit PD is a
forged document.
3. In fact most of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court are clearly explainable or
are not very relevant. But even assuming that these circumstances throw some suspicion on
the genuineness of the will, that will not take the place of proof in order to convict the
appellant of a criminal charge. These matters may weigh with the Civil Court in deciding
upon the validity or genuineness of a Will, but the prosecution has failed to prove in this case
that the thumb impression taken on Ex. PD was a forged one. The Sessions Judge had rightly
found that in view of the conflicting state of evidence produced by the prosecution, it was
unsafe to convict the appellant of the offence of forgery. The High Court does not appear to
have given any cogent reasons for disbelieving this finding of the trial Court and was,
therefore, in error in reversing the acquittal on the basis of some suspicious circumstances
only. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set
aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They will now be
discharged from their bail bonds.