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
