Necessary To See If Expert Opinion Is Corroborated Either By Clear Direct Evidence Or Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in an abetment of suicide case, emphasised that it is necessary to see if an expert opinion is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

The Court emphasised thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which affirmed their conviction and sentence in an abetment of suicide case.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated, "In Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), this Court observed that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence."

The Bench said that that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the Court should be one of caution and the reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined.

"In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted”, it added.

AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal represented the Appellants/Accused while AOR Swati Ghildiyal represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, the informant lodged an FIR in 2009 stating that in morning, she and her daughter had gone to a water park dispensary as she was working there and, in the afternoon, a neighbour came to her dispensary and told her that her that her mother-in-law was ill. On hearing this, she came back home immediately and when she reached her house, she saw that many people had gathered there. She went inside and saw her husband lying on a cot with his younger and elder brother standing nearby. Though she tried to revive him, he did not respond; he had already died. As she started weeping, the ladies who were present there told her that her husband had consumed poison. As per the informant, about a year ago from the day of the incident, a case of misappropriation was registered against her husband in his office. She and her elder brother-in-law had asked him as to why he needed so much of money to which he replied that one cleaning worker in his office had trapped him in a love scandal and thereafter started blackmailing him for money. It was for this reason that he had to withdraw money from the office to give her.

It was further stated that at the time of death of the informant’s husband, one note of two pages from his pocket was found. She stated that from that note, it was apparent that the said cleaning worker and her family members (accused persons/Appellants) were blackmailing her husband after taking various photographs and videos of him with her in compromising position. She further stated that her husband had also stolen ornaments (jewellery) of her daughter and gave those to the accused persons and it was for this reason that her husband had consumed poison. The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) but acquitted them of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. This was assailed before the High Court and the conviction was upheld. Resultantly, they approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, observed, “… there is nothing on record to show recovery of any jewellery (ornaments) by the police from the accused persons. No signed cheques of the deceased or cheque book or passbook of the deceased were recovered and exhibited in court. In such circumstances, the very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat.”

The Court said that there is no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at the place of occurrence; no bottle/container of such poison was recovered from the residence of the deceased and moreover, the prosecution could not place before the Court any material as to wherefrom the deceased had procured the poison.

“In Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, this Court opined that in a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison is crucial”, it reiterated.

The Court further noted that the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert of FSL, Gandhinagar opined that the handwriting was of the deceased, however, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as an expert witness and the records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert.

“Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused persons.

Cause Title- Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 322)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates Rajiv Kumar, Sanjeev Gupta, Bhanu Kapoor, and J.K. Mishra.

Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates Deepanwita Priyanka, and Devyani Bhatt.

Click here to read/download the Judgment