GOPAL KISHAN SHARMA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 21 -4 -1980 by which .e confirmed the conviction of the petitioners. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 423 IPC and sentenced to each petitioner to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 500/ -. Against this conviction an appeal was preferred and in the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge maintained their conviction but reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 250/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprison - ment.
(2.) HEERA s/o Teja who is real brother of petitioners Gana Bux and Kishana lodged a written report on 11 -12 -1970 and sent it to the Superinten - dent of Police, Sikar. In that complaint, he lodged that he owns two plots of land measuring 5 bighas 13, biswas and 8 bighas, 4 biswas. Their Khasra No. are 57 and 49. According to him, Ganga Bux and Kishana petitioners are on inimical terms with him and in view to cause harm and to swallow the land held by Heera got forged a sale -deed in their favour on 13 -3 -1979 and also got it registered with Sub -Registrar, Danta Ram Garh. He came to know of this fact when the sale -deed was produced before the Sub -Divisional Officer in case Ganga Bux v. Heera which was decided on 21 -7 -1970. On this complaint, the FIR No. 68/70 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 467, IPC. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the petitioners in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The learned Magistrate framed the charge under Section 471, 419/114 and 468 IPC against the petitioners Ganga Bux and Kishana under Section 419/114 and 468 IPC against the petitioners Pokhar and Kana Ram. All the petitioners did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Then this case was transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar who completed the trial and found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 423 IPC only. He acquitted the petitioners from the -charges levelled against them by the learned Magistrate. Thus, Ganga Bux and Kishana were acquitted of the offence under Sections 471, 419/114 and 468 IPC and the accused -petitioners Pokhar and Kana Ram were acquitted from the offences under Sections 419/114 and 468 IPC. Thus, aggrieved by the conviction under Section 423 IPC by both the lower courts, the petitioners have come in the revision in this Court. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners is based on the solitary statement of Finger -Print Expert Shri Habibul Rehman. The basis of their conviction is the opinion of Shri Habibul Rehman, Finger Print Expert. He argued that the conviction of the petitioners cannot be held on the solitary statement of the Finger Print Expert and on the basis of his opinion. There should be some independent evidence to corroborate the opinion of the Finger Print Expert as well as to corroborate his statement. In support of his argument Mr. Goyal cited the case of Gopiram and Anjandas v. The State of Rajasthan 1980 WLN 83 which is a case of Division Bench of this Court. This case of Gopiram and Anjandas v. State of Rajasthan is also under Section 417 and 471 IPC. The conviction was based on the opinion of Hand -writing Expert. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Lord - ships as under: Having gone through the above authorities we are of the opinion that, though, the opinion of the Hand writing Expert should be received with great caution, and conviction solely on such evidence should not be based; but if there is some external or internal evidence apart from the opinion of the Handwriting Expert conviction can be based on such evidence. In a case where there is the only evidence of the Hand -writing Expert and on comparison of the disputed writings with the specimen or standard or proved writing the Court comes to its own conclusion that they are writings of the same person, conviction can be recorded, as in that case it can be said that the fact that the dispute writings are of the accused can be said to be proved within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(3.) WHILE dealing the case of Gopiram (supra) the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradash : 1957CriLJ559 and Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab : 1977CriLJ711 were relied upon.;