Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Joginder Singh And Ors on 14 May, 2019
RSA No. 5197 of 2012
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of Decision: May 14th , 2019
Harbhajan Singh —Appellant
vs.
Joginder Singh and others —Respondents
RSA No. 2477 of 2013(O&M)
Harbhajan Singh —Appellant
vs.
Dial Singh and others —Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
The appellate court, in para 11 of the judgment, has referred to testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert PW3 and noticed the opinion/observations made by him to conclude that on detailed examination and comparison, he is of the opinion that thumb impressions Mark Q1 to Q3 on the sale deed Ex. D3 do not tally with specimen thumb impressions Mark L1 to L3 and mark R1 to R3. In the later part of the judgment, there is not even a whisper with regard to testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta or the reasons that weighed in the mind of Appellate Court to discard the report and testimony of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. There cannot be dispute about settled position in law that science of finger prints comparison is a perfect science and as such testimony of an expert witness can be relied upon unless there are valid and legal reasons to reject the comparison and opinion made by the expert. In the case at hand, the contesting defendants did not avail services of another expert to counter/rebut the report prepared by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta meaning thereby that report prepared by Sh.Anil Kumar Gupta remains unrebutted and unchallenged.