Arjan Singh and Others v. Hazara Singh: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Forged Will Case

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

Arjan Singh and Others v. Hazara Singh: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Forged Will Case

 

Suspicion Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction

 

Conflicting Expert Evidence Weakens Prosecution

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 28, 2026:

 

On 14 February 1979, the Supreme Court of India in Arjan Singh and Others v. Hazara Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1974) delivered a pivotal ruling on the alleged forgery of a will purportedly executed by Sahib Singh. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.D. Koshal examined whether the prosecution had successfully proved that the thumb impression on the disputed will (Exh. PD) was not genuine.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on expert testimony, but the Court noted that the opinions of handwriting and fingerprint experts were conflicting and inconclusive. More importantly, there was no direct proof establishing that the thumb impression did not belong to Sahib Singh. The Court emphasized that in criminal law, conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion or civil probabilities; the standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Highlighting this principle, the Supreme Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for forgery. The prosecution’s inability to dispel doubts about the authenticity of the thumb impression rendered the case unsafe. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restoring the acquittal of the accused.

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s insistence on strict standards of proof in criminal trials. It serves as a reminder that while civil disputes may be decided on probabilities, criminal liability demands certainty and credible evidence. The ruling remains a landmark precedent in safeguarding individuals against wrongful conviction based on suspicion alone.

 

 

 

 

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

 

 

 

 

	Case Summary	:	Arjan Singh and Others v. Hazara Singh.
	Court	:	Supreme Court of India
	Citations	:	(1979) 02 SC CK 0045: Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1974.
	Link	:	https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/650353/arjan-singh-and-others-vs-hazara-singh/
	Decided on	:	14 February 1979
	Coram	:	Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.D. Koshal. (Division Bench)
	Relevant Paragraphs	:	Para Nos. 1-3

1.         Facts of the Case

The appellants were prosecuted for forging a Will (Exh. PD) alleged to have been executed by Sahib Singh in their favour. The trial court acquitted them for lack of direct proof. On State appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, sentencing two years’ R.I. on each count (concurrent). One accused (Bachan Singh) had died and the appeal abated. The alleged forgery rested solely on an expert opinion that the thumb impression on Exh. PD did not match that on Exh. PA (admitted).

 

2.         Law Points Involved

(i).        Standard of proof in criminal prosecution for forgery of a Will.

(ii).       Evidentiary value and limitations of expert evidence under Section 45 Evidence Act.

(iii).      Distinction between “suspicious circumstances” relevant in civil will-disputes and the proof required for criminal conviction under Sections 467 and 471 IPC.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

(i).        Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 467 & 471

(ii).       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45 (expert evidence, implied)

 

4.         Judgments Referred

No specific precedents were cited in the text; the Court distinguished the approach for civil suspicious-circumstance analysis from criminal proof requirements.

 

5.         Obiter Dicta

Suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will, even if strong, cannot substitute proof of forgery beyond reasonable doubt. Matters that may influence a civil court cannot form the basis of criminal conviction without conclusive evidence.