Evidence law – Handwriting expert testimony – Whether to be corroborated – Murari Lal v. State of M.P. followed – No rule of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But approach should be one of caution – Appellant convicted under Penal Code 1860, under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 for preparing a postal cover in which a forged document was supposedly transmitted – Principal Sessions Judge affirmed judgment passed by trial court – Revision petition rejected by High Court vide impugned judgment: Held: Reliance placed on Murari Lal v. State of M.P. – There can be no fixed rule as such that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution – Probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. [Para 12]
Postal cover allegedly bearing handwriting of the Appellant not available on record – Prosecution failed to lead primary evidence – Trial Court could not have concluded that handwriting on disputed document was of the Appellant – Postal cover never proved as per law – Evidentiary value of handwriting expert rendered redundant – Conviction of Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed: Held: Trial court relied on testimony of handwriting expert to conclude handwriting on postal cover was of the Appellant – However, Trial court noted that the postal cover which allegedly bore the handwriting of the Appellant was not available on record – Prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in form of the original postal cover – Trial court could not have concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the handwriting on the disputed document was that of the accused appellant – Non-exhibition of the original document will lead to the inference that the impugned document i.e., the postal cover, was never proved as per law – As a consequence, evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report concluding that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant rendered redundant – Conviction of Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed – Appellant acquitted of all charges. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibhani Ghosh, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.