out his name as Manjit in the said letter in which he confessed in no uncertain terms that he had committed a blunder in throwing acid on the complainant yet the prosecution was successful in establishing that letter Ex.P1 was in the handwriting of the petitioner. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW9 Dr. Arvind Sud, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, Hoshiarpur, who compared the writing contained in letter Ex.P1 with the standard writing of the petitioner in the sale register of palm oil of M/s Raghbir Chand Ram Parkash, Depot Holder, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. It was the petitioner, who used to make entries in the sale register maintained by the firm of which his father was a partner. As per the prosecution case, Shankar Dass PW7, father of complainant Jagdish Mitter, had been working as A.F.S.O., Samrala and conversant with the handwriting of the petitioner as it was the petitioner, who was making entries in the register regarding sale of palm oil at the depot run by the petitioner's father. The trial Court in para 16 of its judgment observed that it also compared the handwriting of the petitioner on the letter Ex.P1 with that appearing on the sale registers Exs. P2 and P3 and came to the conclusion that the writing was of one and the same person. During the investigation of the case, the petitioner was asked to give his specimen handwriting for its comparison with the writing contained in letter Ex.P1 but he refused. Under these circumstances, the Court can reasonably draw an inference that had he given his specimen handwriting for comparison, it would
