Unsafe handwriting evidence cannot sustain forgery conviction where corroboration is unreliable and proof beyond reasonable doubt is absent.

A conviction for forgery and use of forged documents cannot stand where it rests mainly on unsafe handwriting expert opinion and unreliable supporting evidence. The court found that the expert compared only similarities without properly addressing dissimilarities, while the official witnesses were contradicted by record gaps, weak verification, and the passage of time. Those circumstances created suspicion only, and suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions were set aside, the revision petitions succeeded, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of any fine deposited.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for forgery and use of forged documents was sustainable when it rested principally on handwriting expert opinion and the supporting evidence was found unreliable.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended mainly on comparison of disputed signatures with admitted writings and on the testimony of excise officials said to identify the accused and connect him with the applications and permits. The expert's opinion was treated as unsafe because it relied on similarities without adequately considering dissimilarities. The official witnesses were found unreliable due to contradictions, gaps in the record, lack of proper verification, and the long lapse of time. The circumstances relied upon created suspicion, but suspicion alone could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the convictions were set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of any fine deposited.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be sustained on unsafe handwriting expert opinion and uncorroborated, unreliable evidence, and suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

---