- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Arjan Singh And Others v. Hazara Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on allegations that they forged a will (Ex. PD) purportedly executed by one Sahib Singh in favour of Arjan Singh and others. The trial court (Sessions Judge) acquitted all accused. On prosecution appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by order dated 24 November 1973, reversed the acquittal and sentenced the surviving appellants to two years’ rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. One respondent, Bachan Singh, died during the proceedings, causing the appeal against him to abate. The present matter is an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s conviction order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the thumb impression on the disputed will (Ex. PD) was forged, thereby establishing the offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal merely on the basis of expert testimony and suspicious circumstances surrounding the will.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution (State)
- Relied principally on the testimony of expert witness PW 7 Bhakhtawar Singh, who opined that the disputed thumb impression did not tally with the admitted thumb impression of Sahib Singh (Ex. PA).
- Highlighted various circumstances that, according to the High Court, created suspicion about the genuineness of the will, including:
- Absence of property description in Ex. PD though present in earlier unregistered wills/gift deed.
- No reference in Ex. PD to Sahib Singh’s earlier wills.
- Delayed disclosure and production of the will during mutation proceedings.
- Inconsistencies in Arjan Singh’s statements regarding the place and time of scribing the will.
Defence (Appellants)
- Produced three defence experts—DW 4 Philip Hardless, DW 5 A.S. Bal, and DW 9 Rattan Lal—each opining that the disputed thumb impression matched Sahib Singh’s admitted impression.
- Contended that any superficial dissimilarities were explainable by:
- Different inks used (printer ink for Ex. PA and pad ink for Ex. PD).
- Variation in the angle and size of the impressions.
- Argued that, given conflicting expert evidence, the prosecution had not met the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised the expert evidence in detail. PW 7 Bhakhtawar Singh admitted that he examined the impressions for merely two to three minutes and acknowledged several similarities between the disputed and admitted impressions (identical number of ridges, presence of a delta). He further conceded that perceived dissimilarities, particularly in the curve of the delta, could arise from ink pressure or other factors.
In contrast, three defence experts unequivocally supported the authenticity of the thumb impression. Upon its own visual examination, the Court found no “positive dissimilarity” between the impressions; any apparent differences were attributed to different inks and the angle/size of the impressions.
The Court held that the evidence amounted to “oath against oath,” producing a conflicting record insufficient to sustain a conviction. It observed that suspicious circumstances, while possibly relevant in civil probate proceedings, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The High Court provided no cogent rationale for overturning the trial court’s acquittal, having relied mainly on suspicion rather than proven facts.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed – High Court conviction set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges under Sections 467 and 471 IPC; bail bonds discharged.
The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on mere suspicion or conflicting expert testimony. It also underscores appellate restraint in disturbing a trial court’s acquittal absent compelling reasons. No new precedent was set, but the decision directly exonerates the appellants and restores the trial court’s acquittal.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court dated November 24, 1973 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' RI 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 Ex. 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 PW 7 Bhakhtawar Singh who had opined that the thumb impression on Ex. PD did not tally with the admitted thumb impression of Sahib Singh on Ex. PA. Bhakhtawar Singh was examined before the trial court and his testimony was both slipshod 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 cross-examination he 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. DW 4 Philip Hardless, DW 5 A.S Bal and DW 9 Rattan Lal, all of whom opined that the disputed thumb impression fully tallied with the thumb impression of Sahib Singh on Ex. PA. 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, then it 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 Ex. 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 PW 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 Ex. PB, the gift deed Ex. PA and the will Ex. PC which were unregistered. In the will Ex. 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 Ex. PD. There is no reference of the previous wills in the will Ex. 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 April 29, 1962 but Arjan Singh mentioned the existence of the will Ex. PD for the first time on December 30, 1963 before the Assistant Collector II Grade in the statement, Ex. PL. Even on December 30, 1973, the will, Ex. PD was not produced. The will was produced before the Collector on February 8, 1964. Arjan Singh, in his statement Ex. PI, 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 Ex. PL dated December 30, 1963 Arjan Singh stated that the will was scribed four years back but the will itself is purported to have been written on February 8, 1961. All these circumstances indicate that the will Ex. PD came into being after the death of Sahib Singh. In view of the discussion above, we find that will, Ex. 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.
Alert