The All India Reporter 1950 - Travancore-Cochin Section with Parallel References to (1) 1950 Travancore-Cochin Law Reports (2) 1950 Kerala Law Times (3) 51 Criminal Law Journa Citation: A.I.R. (37) 1950 Travancore-Cochin

469 and 473 of the Travancore Penal Code, the only evidence against the accused was that of a finger-print expert who testified that the thumb impressions of the accused appearing in the Registration books and that taken in Court by the Magistrate were of the same person. [...] 1171 of 1120, on the file of the Kuzhithura Munsiff's Court for a partition of his share in the property and the complainant Boothathan Padmanabhan was defendant 1 in the case and accused 1 and 2 were respecti- vely defendants 18 and 19 Exhibit M is the copy of the plaint. [...] Accused 3 and 4 have therefore been acquitted, The evidence regarding the making of the document consists of the oral testimony of P. W. 3 and P. W. 5. P. W. 3 stated that it was accused 1 who forged the signature of the executant in the document and did not swear to the presence of accused 2. P W. 5 stated that accused 2 was also present The learned Judge, however, disbelieved the evidence of P. [...] A to be written and who signed it and in the absence of the forged document itself, the question arises whether it will be safe to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the finger print expert and declare the guilt of the accused. [...] The learned Judge convicted accused 1 relying on the evidence of P. w. 3 and that afforded by a comparison of the thumb impression of the accused taken in Court and that taken of the person who figured as the executant of the docu- ment and presented it for registration.