Padum Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Background
The appellant, a postman, was accused of forging a recipient's signature on a delivery slip to misappropriate a registered envelope containing Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 20,000 that was meant for a Dr. K.B. Varshney. The envelope went missing in 1992, and the actual addressee's son denied that the signature on the delivery slip was his. Handwriting experts gave conflicting opinions: one government expert said the signature matched, while two others said it did not. The trial court convicted the postman based mainly on the testimony of the family and the fact that he had access to and responsibility for the delivery, sentencing him to a combined seven years, and both the appellate court and the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the handwriting experts' reports were only corroborative evidence, not the sole basis for conviction: the primary evidence was the recipient's son's direct testimony denying the signature was his, combined with the postman being the one person who had custody of and responsibility for the delivery slip. Since the postman offered no explanation for who else could have signed it, the courts were right to draw an adverse presumption against him. However, considering that the offence occurred way back in 1992 and the appellant had already spent over eighteen months in custody, the Court reduced his sentence to time already served while confirming the conviction itself.
Lesson Learnt
In forgery or fraud cases, expert opinion evidence (like handwriting analysis) is rarely enough on its own: courts rely on it only to support other direct evidence, and a person who had sole custody or responsibility over a disputed document may be required to explain irregularities, or face an adverse inference against them.