Conviction Solely On Opinion Of Handwriting Expert Without Substantial Corroboration Hazardous: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant for allegedly preparing a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that basing a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert’s evidence without substantial corroboration would be hazardous.
The Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the IPC for allegedly preparing a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet. The Bench referred to the ‘locus classicus’ on this issue in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), wherein the Supreme Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that “Non-exhibiting of the original document would lead to the only possible inference that the questioned document i.e., the postal cover was never proved as per law and as a consequence, the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report concluding that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant is rendered redundant.”
AOR M.P. Parthiban appeared for the Appellant, while Senior AAG V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered against a student alleging that she submitted a fabricated marksheet while applying for admission to an MBBS course. The original marksheet showed she had secured 767 out of 1200 marks, whereas the forged document reflected 1120 out of 1200 marks. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant had prepared the postal cover used to transmit the forged marksheet.
The High Court had upheld the conviction of the Appellant as imposed by the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court had to examine whether the prosecution had proven that the postal cover in question bore the Appellant’s handwriting. It was noted that the prosecution had relied on the testimony of a handwriting expert without producing the original postal cover in evidence.
“As the prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in form of the original postal cover, the 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,” the Bench remarked.
In Murari Lal (supra), the Court had explained, “True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses — the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect.”
The Court in Murari Lal (supra) also held, “Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant fact…So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Since the postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting the prosecution theory that the same bore the handwriting of the accused appellant. As a result, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court as well as the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: C. Kamalakkannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 309)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR M.P. Parthiban; Advocates Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam and Alagiri K
Respondent: Senior AAG V. Krishnamurthy; Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja and Danish Saifi; AOR Sabarish Subramanian
