Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a constitutional bench reference on the admissibility of typewriter expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent was being tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983 for offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution sought to examine a typewriter expert to prove incriminating facts based on the identity of a typewriter on which a material document was allegedly typed. The defence objected, relying on the decision in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and the trial court upheld the objection. The Delhi High Court dismissed Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987, leading to an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, by order dated March 22, 1990, referred the question to a larger bench. The core legal issue was whether the opinion of a typewriter expert falls within the ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The earlier decision in Hanumant contained an observation that typewriter experts did not fall within Section 45, but that observation was based on a concession and the point was not contested before the Supreme Court. The Court therefore held that Hanumant could not be treated as a binding precedent on this issue. Analysing Section 45, the Court observed that the words 'science or art' are of wide import and cannot be given a narrow meaning. The identification of typewriting based on the peculiar features of a typewriter is a scientific study, and a person specially skilled in that branch of science is an expert under Section 45. The Court referred to dictionary meanings of 'science' and to the principle of updating construction, noting that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an ongoing Act. At the time of its enactment, typewriters were practically unknown, but technological developments required the Act to be construed as always speaking. The Court concluded that the opinion of a typewriter expert is the opinion of a person specially skilled in science, admissible under Section 45. The appeal was allowed, and the evidence was held admissible. The decision primarily favored the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Admissibility of Typewriter Expert Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The question was whether a typewriter expert's opinion is relevant under Section 45. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'science or art' is of wide import and includes the scientific study of typewriting identification. The opinion of a person specially skilled in typewriters is a relevant fact, and Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh did not decide the point as it was based on a concession. Held that typewriter expert opinion is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Paras not specified).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the opinion of a person specially skilled in science. The appeal was allowed and the evidence ruled admissible.
Law Points
- Opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- 'science or art' in Section 45 has wide import and includes scientific identification of typewriting
- Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh does not constitute binding precedent because the point was conceded and not contested
- ongoing statutes should be given updating construction to accommodate technological changes
