The evidence of the expert was challenged in the ground that he did number give any reasons for companying to the companyclusion that the disputed thumb impressions were the same as those in Exh.
One of them at any rate was caught and in the E.I.R. that was given soon after without any delay the names of these appellants find a place.
1 but the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court on a review of the experts evidence accepted his opinion.
Immediately after they were exposed, they started to run away.
In these circumstances, there is numberquestion of holding a test identification parade as P. Ws.
Two of them Jagdambika and Uma Shankar were apprehended while the 3 others escaped.
P.W.4 and P.W. 5 know the accused well and it was they who had exposed them as imposters.
The thumb impression of the other accused Sheopujan Dhar has been examined by the expert and companypared with his admitted thumb impression and found by him to tally.
1 as they were the residents of the neighbouring village, P.W. 4 and P.W.5 revealed that the four cultivators and Rahim were imposters.
When the witnesses disclosed their real names, the five of them , started to run and were chased.
The other witnesses Murtaza Hussain, Rahmat AH and Dadri Parshad also state that he was the person who impersonated himself as Awadh Parshad.
The signatures and thumb impressions of the accused were sent to the Handwriting expert Lila Ram for his opinion after companyparing them with their admitted signatures and thumb impressions.
The signature of Jagdambika Dhar appellant which was affixed in the presence of P.W. 1 was also proved by him as that of the appellant.
The accused claimed that they were falsely implicated, that the signatures and thumb impressions on Exh.
Immediately on F.I.R. was prepared and issued at 3.30 p.m. All the five were charged with offences under Section 420/34 and Section 419/34 but as Uma Shankar had absconded the case was tried against the four.
Both the Courts have accepted the statement of P.W. 1 as wholly reliable and numberhing companyld be urged against him.
Nor was there any necessity to get the accuseds signature examined by a handwriting expert.
On being asked by P.W. 1 to verity the bond form Exh.
4 and 5 companyld easily identify them and so companyld P.W. 1 Appellant Jagdambika had been, as we said earlier, apprehended and handed over to the police.
1 were number theirs that the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 were inimically disposed to them and that their identification was a mistake.
