Courts Should Make Careful Study To Ascertain Similarities When Comparing Disputed Handwritings, Signatures With Admitted Documents: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court in a significant judgment held that where the Court is constrained to undertake the responsibility of comparing the disputed writing or signature with the admitted handwriting or signature, it shall make a careful study, of the same with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the similarities and dissimilarities, and not merely a casual or routine glance. Justice K. Babu, passed the order and observed that, "In a case where the Court is constrained to undertake the responsibility of comparing the disputed writing or signature with the admitted handwriting or signature, it shall make a careful study, if necessary, with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. The judgment shall contain the reasons for any conclusion based on a comparison of the handwriting/signature if the Court proceeds to record a finding thereon. Conclusions arrived based on a casual or routine glance, or perusal shall not be relied on to enter into a finding leading to the conviction of an accused". The Court in this case further went on to hold that as per the mandate of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of a lay person who is acquainted with another's handwriting or signature can be admitted, when he has often seen that person writing something, or when he has been receiving papers written by that person in reply to his own drafts or for the purpose of typing, filing, or advising. "In the present case, the witnesses relied on by the court below only stated that as they had worked with the accused in the same office, they could identify their signatures and writings. The circumstances by which they got familiarity with the signature of accused No.1 or the handwriting of accused No.2 had not been brought out in evidence. They had not given evidence to the effect that they had received documents written by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in answer to documents written by themselves or under their authority and addressed to them or in the ordinary course of business received documents written by accused Nos. 1 and 2 or such documents were habitually submitted to them. Their evidence is so weak that such an inference is not possible", it observed while allowing the appeals before it. The CaseThe prosecution case was that the first and second accused persons who were working as a Junior Employment Officer, and as an Upper Division Clerk in the Town Employment Exchange, Neyyattinkara, respectively, hatched a conspiracy with the third accused who was a beneficiary under the ‘Kerala Unemployment Assistance and Self Employment Scheme, 1982’. It is the case of the prosecution that when the registration of the third accused in the Employment Exchange expired in November 1987 and he failed to renew it within the statutory period, the accused persons 1 and 2 issued a duplicate identity card to him on July 4, 1988, pursuant to which a sum of Rs.3,070/- was paid to third accused during the period between 27.02.1989 to 15.6.1994 as unemployment assistance. It was alleged by the prosecution that the 2nd accused person had prepared the duplicate identity card, while the 1st accused had affixed his signature in the capacity as issuing authority, and had thereby abused their official position to extend the pecuniary benefit to the 3rd accused and also cause corresponding loss to the Government. Accordingly, the three accused persons were charged with offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 477-A and 420 r/w Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court (the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram) convicted the three accused and sentenced the 1st accused person to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and the 2nd and 3rd accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year each.It is against this decision of the trial court that the instant appeals were preferred. It was pointed out by the counsels for the appellants that the prosecution had relied on the oral evidence of PW 3 who was an Upper Division Clerk attached to the Town Employment Office, Neyyatinkara, who worked during the period 1985 to 1991, PW 4, PW 7 who was a 71 year old Employment Officer of the Town Employment Exchange, PW8 who was another employee of the Town Employment Office, Neyyattinkara, and PW9. The counsels pointed out that PW3 could not ascertain the signature and writings seen in the duplicate identity card was that of the 1st and 2nd accused respectively; PW 4 also submitted that he could not ascertain who wrote the duplicate identity card. Although PW7 identified the signature in the duplicate document as that of the 1st accused, he added that he came to the conclusion that the said signature was affixed by the said accused since the name of the signatory was there. On the other hand, PW 8 and 9 deposed that the signature and writings in the document resembled...

Courts Should Make Careful Study To Ascertain Similarities When Comparing Disputed Handwritings, Signatures With Admitted Documents: Kerala HC

Navya Benny

Court finds that the evidence that the person who gives opinion as to the handwriting of another is working with the latter in the same office alone would not be sufficient to admit the opinion in evidence

Tags