The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of caution when relying on expert opinions, particularly those of handwriting experts, due to the inherent imperfections in the science of handwriting identification. This ruling was delivered in the case C. Kamalakkannan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where the appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The case revolved around the fabrication of a marksheet used for admission to an MBBS course. The prosecution contended that the accused prepared the postal cover containing the forged marksheet. To establish this claim, the prosecution relied heavily on a handwriting expert’s testimony, which asserted that the handwriting on the postal cover matched the appellant’s. However, the original postal cover was never exhibited in evidence, raising serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges Bar Council Extension, Seeks Fresh Elections
1. Importance of Corroboration in Expert Evidence : The Supreme Court referred to the landmark case of Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, which emphasized that while expert opinions are admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, they must be examined critically.
“So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of a 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 court clarified that handwriting analysis is not an exact science, and its reliability is lower than other forensic techniques like fingerprint analysis. Hence, corroboration becomes crucial in certain cases.
2. The Court Must Scrutinize the Expert’s Reasoning : The judgment emphasized that courts should not accept handwriting expert opinions at face value. Instead, they should carefully scrutinize the reasoning behind the expert’s conclusion.
“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.”
3. The Prosecution’s Failure to Exhibit Primary Evidence : One of the most significant shortcomings in the prosecution’s case was the failure to produce the original postal cover as primary evidence. The court observed:
“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.”
Read Also:- Gujarat High Court Criticizes Municipality's Silence on Death of Sanitation Workers
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Acquittal of the Appellant
After evaluating the facts, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of primary evidence, coupled with the sole reliance on a handwriting expert’s opinion, made the conviction untenable.
“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.”
Accordingly, the court quashed the conviction and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a clean acquittal.
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that expert opinions, particularly in handwriting analysis, must be approached with skepticism. Some key takeaways include:
- Expert testimony is not conclusive and should be supported by additional evidence.
- Primary evidence must be produced before relying on expert findings.
- Judicial scrutiny of expert opinions is essential to prevent wrongful convictions.
Case Title: C. KAMALAKKANNAN VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI
