When the court should not rely on evidence of handwriting expert regarding proof of forgery in execution of will?

 Dr. Khatri's report is an elaborate analysis of the Testator's signature. He compares the signature on the Will, which he calls "Disputed Document Q", to four documents, viz., three letters to the Bank of Baroda dated 23rd February 1987 (called, respectively, "Known Document K-1"); 8th April 1988 ("Known Document K-2"), and 22nd September 1989 ("Known document K-3"), and the passport of the deceased ("Known document K-4") The analysis is divided into what Dr. Khatri calls class characteristics and individual characteristics. {Para 30}

31. Class characteristics are, he claims, based on various parameters such as the movement of the writing instrument, the slant, the pressure applied etc.; individual characteristics deal with aberrations in the disputed signature when compared to individual signatures in the known documents. The Testator's signatures on his passport and other documents tendered for comparison reveal that his signature had a forward slant and was made at some speed.36 The speed in the disputed signature had decreased. Discrepancies can also be found between individual characteristics of the admitted and disputed signatures.

32. I will deal with the so-called class characteristics first, as they speak to the general nature of the Testator's signature. Tendered for consideration as his standard signatures are the exhibits in the 'K' series of the report. There exist several anomalies in the class characteristics; to my mind, they follow a trend. To begin with, the Testator wrote at a medium speed and with superior skill in the 'K' series of signatures; his speed is said to decrease and the skill is said to be inferior in the contested signature. As for the slant of the letters and their alignment, the difference is negligible. The muscle co-ordination is said to have deteriorated in the disputed signature.37

33. To my mind, these observations merely accommodate the fact that the Testator had grown older. Dr. Khatri was not informed at the time of analysing the signatures that he had suffered a paralytic attack some years earlier and was also suffering from heart disease.38

34. Individual characteristics are often more telling of deceit, as they analyse the strokes of the pen in minute detail. Dr. Khatri's findings are that the signature in K-4, made around 1960, was made with a good rhythm and speed, which is missing from the rest. The other signatures were made in the period of 1987-89, almost thirty years after the first. There are other discrepancies found by the handwriting expert, none too great. He observes that the letter 'P' in 'P.B. Shah' in the admitted signatures has a certain stroke, in the shape of an oval, which he says the disputed signature does not have. I notice that the admitted signatures have varying versions of that stroke, as does the disputed signature. Further, Dr. Khatri says, the word 'Shah' has been written with a trembling hand.39

35. The report in itself does not offer any conclusive finding. It merely opines that there are fundamental and significant dissimilarities, except some resemblance.40 In his cross-examination, Dr. Khatri states that the document 'seems to be forged'.41 He further states that he has not used the word "forgery", but the meaning was the same.42 As for attempts at disguising the signature, Dr. Khatri admits that he did not find any.

36. Before moving on, a look at the information that the expert had before him when preparing his Report. The relevant questions of Dr. Khatri's cross-examination are these:

Q - 130. Did you have any discussion about the health of the Testator with anybody?

Ans. No.

Q - 131. Do you agree that you were not aware that he was suffering from any ailment?

Ans. No. I was not aware whether he was suffering from any ailment.

Q - 162. Are you aware if the signatory had suffered from a paralytic attack?

Ans. No.

Q - 163. If a person suffers from a paralytic attack, the signature can differ. Is that correct?

Ans. Yes.

Q - 166. Did you enquire whether the Testator was writing with his left hand or the right hand?

Ans. No. since it does not matter.

Q - 167. Is it correct to say that the handwriting or signature of a person differs if he suffers from partial blindness, heart problem as well as due to ageing?

Ans. Yes.

Q - 309. Does the signature of a person differ from time to time; say over a period of 2 years, depending upon the age of a person?

Ans. Yes, may be.

Q - 311. According to you, what are the circumstances or reasons when signature or handwriting differs?

Ans. It could be the age of a person, time, health and mental orientation.

Q - 312. Does the signature differ, when the person is required to sign in a limited space?

Ans. Yes, a little variation may happen.

Q - 313. Would it be correct to say that the Testator had to sign in a limited space i.e. in between two lines?

Ans. Yes.

37. It is known that the Testator suffered a paralytic stroke in his late sixties. He also suffered from heart disease. I presume that a paralytic stroke might well impede a person's physical ability to write. This is substantiated by Dr. Khatri in Q. 53 of his cross-examination.43 So would afflictions such as heart disease and aging, and this, too, is borne out by Dr. Khatri himself in his response to Q. 167. After his paralytic attack, the Testator learnt how to write and sign with his left hand.44 This is, in fact, a question elicited by the Defendant in the Plaintiff's cross-examination, and it creates an anomaly in and of itself. For, if it is the Defendant's case at one stage that Popatlal used his left hand, then there is little point in this exercise of comparing signatures. That assumes a certain continuity in the manner and mode of writing -- the same hand without any great or intervening impairment. This conflict in the Defendant's own case is never reconciled at all. It is therefore unreasonable on the Defendant's own showing to expect that Popatlal would sign with the same level of dexterity after the attack as he did before. It is apparent from the expert's cross-examination that he was unaware of this fact.45 Further, he says that in a given case, it would not matter if the Testator signed with his right or left hand as far as his report is concerned.46 I find this hard to believe. Many of us simply cannot sign with the other hand; not everyone is ambidextrous; and should we have to learn to use that hand, it would be very difficult to achieve the same fluency in signatures that we once had with the good hand. Indeed, most of us have difficulty signing with the same hand on an unfamiliar medium, such as an electronic tablet. I do not find in Dr. Khatri's report any allowance for this working-hand reversal; the assumption is that all the signatures are with the same hand. Surely, had he been made aware of the Testator's paralysis and the consequent adoption of his left hand for writing and signing, Dr. Khatri might have considered this fact of some moment in his assessment of the so-called aberrations in the disputed signature. Without the information placed at his disposal, Dr. Khatri only considered signatures made within a span of 5 years, i.e., from 1987 (K-1) to 1992 (Q). He disregarded K-4 saying that because the signature in K-4 was in very good rhythm and speed, and this was missing in all the other documents, which signified ageing and health issues and this, in turn, caused the difference in style of writing and rhythm. For these reasons, he does not take K-4 as a standard for comparison.47 In my judgment, this is the single most telling fallacy in Dr. Khatri's report. Simply put, he disregarded the issue of age and health, and refused to examine K-4 as a standard specimen. Moreover, he was not told of the paralytic attack, nor did he have any information as to the Testator's forced adoption of his left hand to write and sign. These are undoubtedly material circumstances and they would certainly have had a bearing on his final assessment.

38. An expert's opinion does not always need corroboration, but it must be complete, i.e., based on a completeness of factual material, and must reflect sound reasoning. Mr. Narula relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Murari Lal S/o. Ram Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0189/1979 : (1980) 1 SCC 704 for the proposition that corroboration is not invariably required. This is true. However, the Court in Murari Lal also held that on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration; the degree of corroboration might vary from case to case. A court should be cautious, not suspicious.48 It should consider all other relevant evidence and then decide whether to accept or reject it. Handwriting analysis is an imperfect science. Experts' opinions are error-prone. They are not to be brushed aside, but they are also not to be accepted as the unvarnished truth merely because they say a particular thing. Nothing prevents the court from comparing the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then coming to a conclusion of its own. If there is an opinion of an expert, or of any witness, the court may apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwriting for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision. In Ajay K. Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0795/2012 : (2012) 12 SCC 406 the Supreme Court held that the evidence of an expert witness, though inconclusive on its own, was not to be discarded entirely. The final decision is always that of the Court.49

39. I find little evidence to support Mr. Narula's submissions. Some discrepancies are inevitable, and allowance must be made for them. Dr. Khatri's report does not prove forgery.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 2005 in Testamentary Petition No. 753 of 2004

Decided On: 08.07.2016

Shirish Popatlal Shah  Vs. Arun Popatlal Shah

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Patel, J.

Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ 257,MANU/MH/1122/2016.

Print Page

What will be effect of paralytic attack and heart disease on handwriting of person?

 It is known that the Testator suffered a paralytic stroke in his
late sixties. He also suffered from heart disease. I presume that a
paralytic stroke might well impede a person’s physical ability to
write. This is substantiated by Dr. Khatri in Q. 53 of his crossexamination.44
So would afflictions such as heart disease and aging,
and this, too, is borne out by Dr. Khatri himself in his response to
44 p. 221.
Q. 167. After his paralytic attack, the Testator learnt how to write
and sign with his left hand.45 This is, in fact, a question elicited by
the Defendant in the Plaintiff’s cross-examination, and it creates an
anomaly in and of itself. For, if it is the Defendant’s case at one
stage that Popatlal used his left hand, then there is little point in this
exercise of comparing signatures. That assumes a certain continuity
in the manner and mode of writing — the same hand without any
great or intervening impairment. This conflict in the Defendant’s
own case is never reconciled at all. It is therefore unreasonable on
the Defendant’s own showing to expect that Popatlal would sign
with the same level of dexterity after the attack as he did before. It is
apparent from the expert’s cross-examination that he was unaware
of this fact.46 Further, he says that in a given case, it would not
matter if the Testator signed with his right or left hand as far as his
report is concerned.47 I find this hard to believe. Many of us simply
cannot sign with the other hand; not everyone is ambidextrous; and
should we have to learn to use that hand, it would be very difficult to
achieve the same fluency in signatures that we once had with the
good hand. Indeed, most of us have difficulty signing with the same
hand on an unfamiliar medium, such as an electronic tablet. I do not
find in Dr. Khatri’s report any allowance for this working-hand
reversal; the assumption is that all the signatures are with the same
hand. Surely, had he been made aware of the Testator’s paralysis
and the consequent adoption of his left hand for writing and signing,
Dr. Khatri might have considered this fact of some moment in his
assessment of the so-called aberrations in the disputed signature.
45 Plaintiff’s cross-examination, Qn. 5, p. 43.
46 Dr. Khatri’s cross-examination, Qn. 162, p. 238.
47 Dr. Khatri’s cross-examination, Qn. 166, p. 238.
Without the information placed at his disposal, Dr. Khatri only
considered signatures made within a span of 5 years, i.e., from 1987
(K-1) to 1992 (Q). He disregarded K-4 saying that because the
signature in K-4 was in very good rhythm and speed, and this was
missing in all the other documents, which signified ageing and
health issues and this, in turn, caused the difference in style of
writing and rhythm. For these reasons, he does not take K-4 as a
standard for comparison.48 In my judgment, this is the single most
telling fallacy in Dr. Khatri’s report. Simply put, he disregarded the
issue of age and health, and refused to examine K-4 as a standard
specimen. Moreover, he was not told of the paralytic attack, nor did
he have any information as to the Testator’s forced adoption of his
left hand to write and sign. These are undoubtedly material
circumstances and they would certainly have had a bearing on his

final assessment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 20 OF 2005
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 753 OF 2004
SHIRISH POPATLAL SHAH,
v
ARUN POPATLAL SHAH,
CORAM : G.S.Patel, J.
Dated : 8th July 2016
Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ 257

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court when disputed writing is of an aged writer

Identification of handwriting is based on like-with-likecomparison.  During the process of identification consideration
must be given to the writing variation.  No two samples of
writing written by any individual are identical in every detail,
since variation is an integral part of natural writing.

Nature and extent of variation differs from person to person
and, in its way, forms an important element in identification
process.  Writing variation is due to various factors  external
factors like writing position, writing instrument, care of
execution, etc; physical and mental conditions like fatigue,
intoxication, drug use, illness, nervousness, etc.  These factors
produce a varying degree of variation.  The variation is
commensurable in its degree with the intensity of the cause.

The advanced age of the writer and the quality of writing he
prepares in the course of time may introduce greater variation
between writings written at widely separated dates.
        
Variation does not preclude identification of the writing.  In
fact, it forms an additional factor that serves to personalize the
writing.
        
Thus, handwriting can be most accurately identified when the
standard writings and the questioned writings were written
under comparable conditions.
        
It is necessary to demonstrate that not only the disputed
writing has the qualities and habits of the standard writing,
but also that the deviations from the basic patterns (nature
and extent of variations) that occur in the disputed writings are
such as can be predicted from the variations in the standards.
        
Limited comparable standards sometimes complicate the  
matter of identification / non-identification.  As such, adequate
and suitable standards be supplied.
        
If questioned writing purports to be by an aged writer, it is
especially desirable that the standards should not only be near
the date of the writing in question but it should also, if
possible, be shown that they were written under similar health
conditions.
        
In cases involving forged signatures not only should
comparison signatures be obtained from documents of similar
importance, but if possible also from documents which are
roughly contemporary with those in question.
        
Writing of an adult will show an obvious steady change with
passage of time.  In these circumstances provision of a whole
set of signatures written over a period of years will prove of
inestimable value to the document examiner.
        
When serious illness occurs, a signature often undergoes a
remarkable change in a very short period and if a suspect will
is dated near the day of death, standard (admittedly genuine)
signatures covering this period are essential if reliable evidence
of the authenticity or otherwise of the signature is to be
established.
        
Normally, in the case of a typical adult, basic writing habits
change gradually.  Therefore, material written two or three
years before or after the disputed writing serve as satisfactory
standards, but as the lapse of years between the date of
standards and questioned material becomes greater, the
standards have a tendency to be less representative.
Consequently, an effort should always be made to procure
some standards (admittedly genuine writings / signatures)
written near in date to the disputed matter.
        
      The gist of the experts opinion, emerging from the above
Report, is to the effect that it is not always necessary to have
contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison. 
However, as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake
comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed
handwritings/signatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years
from each other.  Therefore, there can be no hard and fast norm as to
when comparison can or cannot be undertaken owing to the time lag 
between the two sets of handwritings/signatures.  Various other
factors would have to be taken into consideration, as opined by the
experts, quoted hereinbefore. Each case would turn upon its own
facts and circumstances relating to the time lag, the change in the
handwriting/signature, the capability of correlating the two sets and
ultimately, the opinion of the expert himself as to whether the two
sets can be compared.  It is therefore not open to the Court to refuse
to entertain an application seeking comparison of disputed
handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures on
the ground of a long lapse of time between the two sets of

handwritings/signatures.

HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1500 of 2010     

Dated:18-12-2015 

Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad .. Petitioner

Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others Respondents    



THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY          

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN             

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR         

Citation:AIR 2016 HYD 118(FB)

Print Page

Whether court is barred from seeking expert opinion if there is long gap between disputed and admitted writing?

    We accordingly answer the reference as under:
      It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court,
depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case
before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of
the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/
signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/
signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap
between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed
handwriting/signature is long.  The Court must however endeavour
to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed
handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures,
separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to
facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory
standards.  That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about
this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to
voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/
signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of
comparison for a viable expert opinion.  The view expressed by the
Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED V/s. DIVYA        
FINANCIERS1, as to the stage of the proceedings when an application 
can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this
Full Bench to address that issue.
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1500 of 2010     

Dated:18-12-2015 

Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad .. Petitioner

Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others Respondents    



THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY          

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN             

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR         

Citation:AIR 2016 HYD 118(FB)

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances conspiracy can be proved on the basis of photograph of disputed handwriting?

On the whole, we think that if the court is satisfied that there is no trick photography and the photograph is above suspicion, the photograph can be received in evidence. It is, of course, always admissible to prove the contents of the document, but subject to the safeguards indicated, to prove the authorship. This is all the more so in India under s. 10 of the Evidence Act to prove participation in a conspiracy. Detection and proof of crime will be rendered not only not easy but sometimes impossible if conspirators begin to correspond through photographs of letters instead of originals, Many conspiracies will then remain unproved because one of the usual methods is to intercept a letter, take its photograph and then to send it on and wait for the reply. But evidence of photographs to prove writing or handwriting can only be received if the original cannot be obtained and the photographic reproduction is faithful and not faked or false. In the present case no such suggestion exists and the originals having been suppressed by the accused, were not available. The evidence of photographs as to the contents and as to handwriting was receivable. 639, Regarding the specimen writing in the letter Z 217, with which, the impugned writings were compared, we think the letter must be treated as genuine for the purpose of comparison of handwriting.

Supreme Court of India

Laxmipat Choraria And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 1967

Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 938, 1968 SCR (2) 624

Bench: Hidayatullah, M.

Print Page

Whether Court should reject application for sending disputed handwriting to handwriting expert on the ground of delay?

I am of the considered opinion that obtaining handwriting expert's opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case would certainly help the Court to arrive at a consistent and firm conclusion. A plain reading of the order of the lower Court would convey the idea that the lower Court dismissed the I.A. on the sole ground that there was delay in applying to the Court by the defendant for getting the assistance of the handwriting expert. In such a case, the mere delay should not be taken as material, for the reason that as per the defendant's version, he awaited the plaintiff to take steps to obtain handwriting expert's opinion, but in this case, he did not do so. Hence, when the matter was posted for defence, he chose to invoke the power of the Court under Order 26 Rule 10(a) of CPC and to get assistance of handwriting expert to find out whether the purported signature of the defendant is that of his admitted signature. Even though Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act might contemplate that the Court itself could compare the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature, nonetheless, the Court should be slow in resorting to such a procedure, to the effect judicial views are found set out in catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1992 (3) SCC 701 (State of Maharashtra thro CBI Vs. Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and Others).

Madras High Court

Karuppa Gounder vs Kuppusamy on 5 March, 2009

Citation: AIR2009Mad122

Print Page

Whether court can ask prosecutrix to give specimen signatures or handwriting U/S 311­A of CRPC?

Perusal   of   the   above   Section   makes   it 
clear,   specially   the   Proviso,   that   it   relates   to 
the  power  of the  Magistrate  to direct  any  person 
including   an   accused   person   to   give   specimen 
signatures   or   handwriting,   if   it   is   considered 

expedient   for   the   purpose   of   investigation   or 
proceeding, provided, the person concerned had at 
some   time   been   arrested   in   connection   with   the 
investigation   or   proceedings   concerned.   It   is 
pertinent   to   note   that   Respondent   No.2­ 
prosecutrix is not an accused nor a person who was 
arrested   in   connection   with   investigation   or 

proceeding concerned. Section 311­A of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure does not apply to the facts of 
the present matter. 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                       
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
CRIMINAL  REVISION  APPLICATION  NO.48  OF 2014
Dr. Suyog s/o Dinkarrao Vyas,

       VERSUS             
1) The State of Maharashtra,
2) Prosecutrix
   (for name see original Petition)  
                                ...
              CORAM:    A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

   DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2014 
Citation;2014 CRLJ(NOC)444 Bom,2016 ALLMR(CRI)1042

Print Page