S. 45 Evidence Act | Opinion Of Handwriting Expert Must Be Treated With Caution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that while expert evidence may not always require corroboration, courts must exercise caution when relying on expert testimony particularly the handwriting expert due to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved the fabrication of a mark sheet used for admission to an MBBS course.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of a handwriting expert to prove that the handwriting on the postal cover matched the appellant's. However, the original postal cover was never exhibited as evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove its existence.

The Appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the expert's evidence report cannot be relied upon in the absence of the original postal cover.

Finding merit in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta noted that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover, which was central to the case.

The court cited the landmark case of Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, which established principles for assessing expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It held that while expert testimony is not inherently unreliable, it must be carefully scrutinized, with the reasoning behind the opinion thoroughly examined. Further, it held that corroboration may be necessary depending on the case, but there is no strict rule requiring expert evidence to always be corroborated.

Some of the vital observations made by the Supreme Court in Murali Lal's case are:

“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.”

“The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”

“We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that 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, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution.”

The judgment reinforces the notion that the expert's evidence should not be accepted at the face value but may require caution especially when the expert's testimony remained uncorroborated, as seen in the present case.

“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.”, the court observed.

“we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly posted. 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.”, the Court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Case Title: C. KAMALAKKANNAN VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.