Expert Witness – Trace Your Case

GHUREY LAL V. STATE OF U.P

Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P 2008, 10 SCC 450

Whether the injuries caused to Brij Raj Singh be caused by the same shot that killed the deceased?
Whether the trial court judgement was perverse and High Court was justified in setting aside the same?

When two possible and plausible explanations co-exist, the explanation favorable to the accused should be adopted.

On 14.03.1979, the deceased and others had taken the customary gur (Jaggery) during the Holi festival.
On their way home, they crossed the accused’s house who began to verbally abuse the deceased. He had a shot gun, fired it, killing the deceased and causing injuries to the Brij Rai Singh (one of the witnesses) with pellets. The accused then fled from the scene.
The accused was charged for murder of the deceased and attempting to murder Brij Raj Singh. He denied the charges and asked to be tried.
The trial court examined the report of the Ballistic expert who was of the opinion that the injuries to Brij Raj Singh were from a different shot than the one that killed the deceased. Therefore, the trial court concluded that both the injuries were not possible by a single firearm and that two weapons were used.
The trial court believed the accused cannot be convicted for the charges framed against him and was entitled to get a benefit of doubt as some serious infirmities were found in the prosecution version and was virtually left with no choice. The State appealed before the High Court.
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court’s judgement was unsustainable and was of the opinion that both their injuries were caused from the same weapon in a single shot. It convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to this court.

The Supreme Court is clearly of the opinion that-
The deceased died of a bullet injury and Brij Raj Singh received Pellet injuries. Two shots were fired from two different firearms, hence, disagreeing with the High Court.
The trial court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and arrived at the correct conclusion. The view taken by them was plausible and certainly possible. While the court took great pain in discussing all aspects and to record its opinion on every material point, the learned judges of the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court without any substantial reasons in support of its conclusion. The reasoning given by them for overturning the judgment was wholly unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law.
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed and the judgment passed by the High Court was set aside.

Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 86

Whether the legality and propriety of the Appellant’s conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the hand-writing expert valid?

The opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive evidence; however, it may be deemed acceptable if supported by internal or external evidence related to the document in question that corroborates the expert’s conclusions.
The court may also conduct its own comparison of handwriting to verify the expert’s findings, provided the presiding officer is familiar with the language and writing style involved.

On August 15, 1964, a five-year-old boy named Mannu went missing from the home of his relative, Gajendra Natth, in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
A report was filed at the Sisamau police station, and a reward of Rs. 501 was announced for information leading to the child’s recovery.
Two anonymous letters were received by Gajendra Natth; the first demanded a ransom of Rs. 1,000, and the second demanded Rs. 5,000 for the return of Mannu.
In December 1964, Yashpal Singh, a trainee from a local ITI, provided information leading to Mannu’s recovery on January 11, 1965.
The investigation implicated Ram Narain as responsible for the kidnapping and sending the ransom letters.
Ram Narain was charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 468 (forgery), and 384/511 (attempt to commit robbery) of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court convicted Ram Narain under Section 384/511 IPC based solely on handwriting analysis that linked him to the ransom letters.
The conviction was upheld by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Kanpur on appeal.
Ram Narain’s revision petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on October 6, 1969.
The case reached the Supreme Court of India via a special leave petition.

The Supreme Court examined whether Ram Narain’s conviction based solely on handwriting expert testimony was legally sound.
It acknowledged that while handwriting expert opinions are fallible and should be treated with caution, they can be accepted if corroborated by other evidence or if the court itself verifies similarities through comparison.
The court found that all three lower courts had compared the disputed writings with known samples and concluded they matched Ram Narain’s handwriting.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction due to sufficient corroboration from both expert testimony and judicial comparison.
The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was deemed appropriate but was reduced to the time already served due to significant delays in proceedings since the crime occurred.