Case Note & Summary
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 IPC for his alleged involvement in forging a marksheet used for MBBS admission. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had written the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was sent. The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of a handwriting expert (PW-18) and his report (Exhibit A-31) to conclude that the handwriting on the postal cover matched the appellant's. The appellant's conviction was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. On appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court examined the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert's opinion. The Court noted that the original postal cover was not produced, and the expert's reasoning sheet was not brought on record or proved during his testimony. Relying on the principles laid down in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., the Court held that while expert opinion is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, it must be approached with caution. In this case, the expert's opinion lacked proper foundation as the reasoning sheet was not proved, and there was no corroborative evidence. The Court found that the conviction was based solely on inadmissible evidence and thus set aside the impugned judgments, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Handwriting Expert - Admissibility of Expert Opinion - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that the opinion of a handwriting expert is admissible but must be approached with caution; corroboration may be required depending on the facts. In this case, the expert's reasoning sheet was not proved, rendering the opinion inadmissible. (Paras 11-13) B) Criminal Law - Forgery - Conviction based on Expert Evidence - Sections 120B, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for forgery of a marksheet based on the handwriting expert's opinion that he wrote the postal cover. However, the original postal cover was not produced, and the expert's reasoning sheet was not exhibited. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable as the expert evidence lacked proper foundation and corroboration. (Paras 2-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant based primarily on the uncorroborated opinion of a handwriting expert, without the original document being produced and without the reasoning sheet being proved, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Handwriting expert evidence
- admissibility of secondary evidence
- corroboration of expert opinion
- Sections 120B
- 468
- 471 IPC
