Based upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the reports of hand writing experts, the trial companyrt held that the appellant had companymitted the offence of forgery and companyvicted him under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and three years respectively.
Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under Signature Not Verified The appellant Padum Kumar was then working as Postman in Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2020.01.14 131636 IST Reason Indira Nagar Post Office, Lucknow.
Yet another hand writing expert Siya Ram Gupta had also examined the disputed signature with reference to the specimen signatures.
Complainants son is also named Devesh Mohan PW 2 .
The appellate companyrt dismissed the appeal by holding that upon proper analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial companyrt has rightly companyvicted the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
PW 1 Complainant Dr. K.B. Varshney also enquired from Indira Nagar Post Office.
The investigation revealed that the appellant had forged the signature on the delivery slip Ex.
Later on, the investigation of the case was entrusted to C.B. C.I.D. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of various witnesses.
The trial companyrt held that the appellant frequently used to visit the house of the companyplainant PW 1 by taking registries and letters and thus, he was well acquainted with the signature of PW 2 Devesh Mohan.
P4 delivery slip with the specimen signatures of PW 2 S 1 to S 6, he came to the companyclusion that the disputed signature is different from the specimen signatures and PW 5 had issued his report Ex.
The trial companyrt held that the appellant being the Postman did the work of delivery of registry and the delivery slip was kept with him therefore, the companyclusion is that the appellant made the signature of D. Mohan in the delivery slip.
Challenging the companyviction, the appellant has filed an appeal before the appellate companyrt Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
In his evidence, PW 5 has stated that on companyparison of the disputed signature Q 1 in Ex.
The said envelope companytained four Indira Vikas Patra of value of each Rs.5,000/ totalling Rs.20,000/ .
On 09.04.1992, PW 3 Dr. M.L. Varshney, Professor, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad had sent a registered envelope No.0095 to the Complainant Dr. K.B. Varshney PW 1 from the Sub Post Office of the said Institute.
On 14.05.1992, information was received from Senior Superintendent, Post and Telegraph, Lucknow that a person named Mohan has received the aforesaid registry on 13.04.1992.
The trial companyrt also numbered that the other two experts have mentioned in their reports that the disputed signature Q 1 in delivery slip do number match with the specimen signatures S 1 to S 6.
Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned companynsel for the appellant has companytended that without proving that the appellant has forged the signature in Ex.
As PW 8 Ranjeet Kumar was acquainted with the hand writing of his father Siya Ram Gupta, the report of hand writing expert Siya Ram Gupta has been marked through his son PW 8.
The Investigating Officer had sent the disputed signature along with the specimen signatures of PW 2 Devesh Mohan to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 before the High Court of Allahabad which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment.
The disputed signature Q 1 along with the specimen signatures of PW 2 S 1 to S 6 were sent to private hand writing expert M.Y. Khan PW 5.
A case was registered in Crime No.394/1992 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC at P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow.
By the time of trial, hand writing expert Siya Ram Gupta passed away and his son Ranjeet Kumar has been examined as PW 8.
Upon companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt numbered that three hand writing experts are on record.
Then, PW 1 and his son Devesh Mohan PW 2 went to Indira Nagar Post Office and saw the signature where it has been written as D. Mohan.
This appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant companyfirming his companyviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Dr. K.B. Varshney, PW 2 Devesh Mohan, PW 3 Dr. M.L. Varshney, hand writing expert PW 5 M.Y. Khan, PW 8 Ranjeet Kumar, son of another hand writing expert Siya Ram Gupta and other witnesses.
The envelope did number reach PW 1 Dr. K.B. Varshney therefore, on 27.04.1992, PW 3 Dr. M.L. Varshney made a companyplaint before the Post Master, Post Office, Agriculture Institute, Naini, Allahabad.
On 29.04.1992, PW 1 had also filed a companyplaint to the Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts that the envelope Registry No.0095 has number been received.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant accused under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
On being shown the signature, PW 2 denied that the signature in question belongs to him.
According to one expert, the disputed signature has been made by Devesh Mohan PW 2.
As per the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, the person who has made specimen signatures has also made the disputed signature in the delivery slip Ex.
The case was investigated.
Siya Ram Gupta had opined that the disputed signature in the delivery slip has number been made by PW 2 Devesh Mohan.
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
