Handwriting expert opinion alone is unsafe for conviction without corroboration linking the accused to the offence.

SC held that a conviction cannot rest on handwriting expert opinion alone unless it is supported by clear direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the offence. The expert evidence was treated as weak and unsafe as the sole basis of guilt, and the surrounding circumstances, including the identification evidence and alleged presence at the relevant time, were found unreliable. As the record did not satisfactorily link the accused to the forged railway receipt, the theft of the blank receipt, or the alleged possession and sale of the iron sheets, the conviction could not be sustained and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of handwriting expert opinion and the other evidence linking the appellant to the forged railway receipt and the alleged possession and sale of the iron sheets.

Analysis: The only substantial evidence against the appellant was the opinion of the handwriting expert and alleged presence with the supposed intermediary at Ludhiana. The expert opinion was treated as weak opinion evidence and, by itself, unsafe to found a conviction without substantial corroboration. The surrounding evidence was found unsatisfactory: the appellant had no direct connection with the wagons or the theft of the blank railway receipt, the identification at the test identification parade was unreliable, and the alleged presence at the material time did not inspire confidence. The evidence as a whole did not satisfactorily connect the appellant with the offence.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot rest solely on handwriting expert opinion unless it is corroborated by clear direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the offence.

---