What are recent developments in DNA test from perspective of Criminal trial?

 Recent judicial developments show that courts now accept DNA evidence as highly probative, but they insist much more strongly on chain of custody, proper sampling, laboratory integrity, and corroboration before acting on it. From a judge’s point of view, the shift is from treating DNA as merely “scientific and powerful” to asking whether the collection, preservation, documentation, and interpretation are legally reliable and fair.

Main developments

Print Page

Digital Forgery in the Courtroom: Lessons from COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd

 Introduction

The digital age has revolutionized the way documents are created, shared, and stored. However, it has also introduced new avenues for fraud, particularly through digital manipulation of documents. The recent Malaysian High Court decision in COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd offers a compelling case study on how courts can address and analyze digitally forged documents.

Print Page

What is Expert Evidence as per S 39 of BSA?

 Expert evidence refers to testimony provided by a person who possesses specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a particular field relevant to a legal case. This expertise enables them to provide opinions that are beyond the understanding of the average person and assists the court in reaching informed decisions on complex or technical matters.

Print Page

Madras high court directs MEITY to expeditiously notify experts as per S 79A of Information technology Act for authenticating electronic evidence

 Section 63 of BSA, 2023 deals with the admissibility of electronic records. Sub-section (4) of the said provision is as follows :

“(4)In any proceeding where it is desired to give a

statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing

any of the following things shall be submitted along with the

electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for

admission, namely:—

(a) .....

(b) ...

 (c)....

and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the

computer or communication device or the management of the

relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall

be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the

purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be

stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it

in the certificate specified in the Schedule.”

The effect of the above provision is that filing of the certificate is mandatory along with the electronic record. The certificate is to be signed by the person in charge of the computer system and an expert. The sub-section itself refers to a schedule annexed to the Act which is in two parts, Part A and Part B.Part A is to be filled by the party and Part B is to be filled by the expert. Section 39 of the BSA, 2023 deals with opinions of experts. Section 39(2) deals with experts in relation to electronic evidence. Section 39(2) is as follows :

“(2) When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on

any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any

computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is a relevant fact.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an

Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert .”

The above provision takes us to Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It reads as follows :

“79A.Central Government to notify Examiner of Electronic Evidence.–The Central Government may, for the purposes of providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence before any court or other authority specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, any Department, body or agency of the Central Government or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, -electronic form evidence? means any information of probative value that is either

stored or transmitted in electronic form and includes computer

evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax

machines.”

In the light of the above three provisions, namely, Section 63 and Section 39 of BSA, 2023 and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, one can conclude that a person desirous of relying on any electronic record as a document in evidence must submit a certificate at the time of filing the electronic record. The certificate must be in two parts, Part A and Part B. Part B must be filled up by the expert notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

6.It is admitted by the Central Government that only a handful of entities have been notified till date as experts under Section 79A of the Act. It is surprising to note that no expert has been notified in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is beyond dispute that Tamil Nadu has good I.T infrastructure and skilled manpower. Since BSA has already come into force, very soon there will be need for certificates under Section 63(4) of BSA for securing admission of electronic records. If experts are not available in Tamil Nadu, that would result in denial of the right of access to justice which is a fundamental right. I,therefore, direct the second respondent to expeditiously notify sufficient number of persons/bodies/entities as experts in the State of Tamil Nadu.The number to be so notified will have be commensurate with the possible demand. It would be advisable to have such experts in each district in Tamil Nadu. This exercise of assessment and notification shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since the position as on date is that meeting the statutory requirement is not possible of compliance, the learned amicus wanted me to read down the Section so that any person who is specially skilled in computer science can be recognised as an expert for the purpose of filling up Part B of the certificate. I do not want to travel that far as that would amount to re-writing Section 79A of the I.T Act. But such an occasion may arise if the notification directed to be issued under Section 79A of the I.T Act, 2000 is not issued by the Central

Government.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

CRP(MD)No.2362 of 2024

R..... ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent

vs.

1.B..... ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner

2.The Secretary to Government,

 Ministry of Electronics and

Information Technology

(MEITY), Government of India,

 New Delhi. ... 2nd respondent

CORAM

 MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Pronounced on : 30.10.2024.

Print Page

Utility of Expert Evidence and Scientific Techniques in Investigation of crime under Indian Criminal Law

 The investigation of crime in India is significantly enhanced by the integration of expert evidence and scientific techniques. These elements play a crucial role in ensuring justice and accuracy in legal proceedings, as outlined by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 

Expert Evidence in Indian Criminal Law

Definition and Relevance

Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an expert is defined as a person possessing specialized knowledge or skills relevant to a particular field. The opinions provided by such experts are considered relevant facts when the court needs to form an opinion on complex matters involving foreign law, science, or art, as well as handwriting or fingerprint identification. This legal framework allows courts to rely on expert testimony to understand intricate issues beyond the grasp of laypersons.

 Admissibility and Evaluation

For expert evidence to be admissible, it must meet specific criteria:

Print Page

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on expert evidence

11. EXPERT OPINION:

The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of expert cannot be disputed.

The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are:

i) that the expert must be within a recognized field of expertise

ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and

iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline.

[See Errors, Medicine and the Law, Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith, 2001 ed., Cambridge University Press, p.178]

12. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of expert evidence. It reads as under:

45. Opinions of experts - When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of hand writing or finger-impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts. Such person called experts. Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.

(b) The question is whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was by reason of unsoundness of mind, in capable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinion of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons are relevant.

13. The importance of the provision has been explained in the case of State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors.   MANU/SC/0557/1999 : (1999) 7 SCC 280. It is held, that, Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

14. It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. It is stated in Titli v. Jones AIR 1934 All 237 that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.

15. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.

(See Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-1194 of 2005 alongwith Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2007, decided on 7.8.2009.

16. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors.   MANU/SC/0299/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 1691 at page 1700, it has been laid down that without examining the expert as a witness in Court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone. In this regard, it has been observed in The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram   MANU/SC/0189/1978 : AIR 1979 SC 14 that "no expert would claim today that he could be absolutely sure that his opinion was correct, expert depends to a great extent upon the materials put before him and the nature of question put to him."

17. In the Article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion" it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rest on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be cross checked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from following inference: Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes form expert. Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002

Decided On: 11.09.2009

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.

Author: H.L. Dattu, J.

Citations: AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 806,MANU/SC/1641/2009.

Print Page

Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion under the Indian Evidence Act

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a structured framework for the admissibility and relevance of expert opinions in legal proceedings. This framework is primarily outlined in Sections 45 to 51, which detail the circumstances under which expert opinions can be considered as evidence.

Definition and Role of an Expert

An expert is defined under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act as an individual possessing specialized knowledge, skill, or experience in specific areas such as:

- Foreign law

- Science

- Art

- Handwriting

- Finger impressions

Print Page

Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

We will first consider the argument, a State argument often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses--the equality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses--, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty 'is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence'. (Vide Lord President Cooper in Decie v. Edinburgh Magistrate 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his Evidence).

 We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1975

Decided On: 21.11.1979

 Murarilal  Vs. State of M.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Sarkaria and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.

Citations: 1980 AIR 531, 1980 SCR (2) 249

Print Page

Whether expert in foreign law can apply foreign law to facts of case before court?

What he would not be entitled to do,
however, is apply what he believes to be the foreign law in question to the facts of
the case before him and to recommend a solution. That has always been within
the exclusive province of the Court deciding the matter. This is to my mind is a
point of distinction between foreign law as a body of learning and other scientific
disciplines. A court, given its legal training, would be perfectly capable of applying
foreign law, once it is ascertained, to the facts before it. However, in respect of
other fields of inquiry, such as medicine, odontology or psychiatry, an expert
witness may legitimately bring his learning to bear upon the facts of the case in
expressing his opinion, which the Court would then proceed to weigh in the
balance along with other factors in deciding the ultimate issue. Indeed, expert
evidence of this nature would not be meaningful unless it bore upon the facts in
question. Even here, however, the role of the expert is not, as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observes in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. &
Ors.(supra), that of a judge or jury and the task of adjudication falls upon the
court alone.

22. If one were to test the evidence of Mr. Keel against this touchstone viz., an
expert in foreign law would be entitled to express an opinion as to what the law is,
but not apply that law to the facts before the Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1428 OF 2015
IN
SUIT NO. 536 OF 2011

DHIRAJLAL ALIAS DHIRUBHAI BABARIA AND ANR. … 
V
NAVINBHAI C. DAVE & ANR.
 CORAM: S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.
 Dated : 29th August, 2017

Print Page

Whether accused can be acquitted if Expert Evidence is cryptic and inadequate?

But looking at the post-mortem report, cause of injuries was not stated nor was any opinion formed to create independent testimony. We would like to emphasize on the vital role played by opinion of the expert which is simply a conclusion drawn from a set of facts coming to his knowledge and observation. Expert's opinion should be demonstrative and should be supported by convincing reasons. Court cannot be expected to surrender its own judgment and delegate its authority to a third person, however great. If the report of an expert is slipshod, inadequate or cryptic and information on similarities or dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert then his opinion is of no value. Such opinions are often of no use to the court and often lead to the breaking of very important links of prosecution evidence which are led for the purpose of prosecution. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that death was caused due to the injuries inflicted by the recovered weapons.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)

Machindra v.  Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb & Ors

Print Page

Whether execution of document can be proved by proving signature on document?

 

Plaintiff has also examined the expert witness PW-3-Devendra

Parsad, the handwriting expert to establish that the family settlement

(Ex.P-1) bears the signatures of the defendant. It is the settled principle of

law that the expert evidence is only an opinion. It could just corroborate

the substantive evidence. The expert evidence cannot substantiated the

execution of the document. It is also the settled principle of law that mere

proof of signatures cannot establish the due execution of a document. So,

the expert evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant will not be of much

consequence to establish the due execution of the family settlement

(Ex.P-1) and to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

 AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A No.1526 of 2014(O&M)

Date of decision : 01.12.2016

Hargursharan Singh

V

Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh

Print Page

How to appreciate Expert evidence of Fingerprint marks?

As far as finger prints on the cello tape are concerned, the report is that print marked 'D' on cello tape matched with specimen of the Appellant and prints marked 'A' to 'C' were unfit for comparison and print 'B' did not match with either of the accused.

10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that only on print mark 'D', the finger prints were found to be matching with the specimen of the Appellant. However, what is significant is that in the court it was found that print 'D' was missing on the cello tape roll. In view thereof, print 'D' could not be relied upon. Insofar as print marks 'A' to 'C' are concerned, the report of the expert is that they were unfit for comparison. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been satisfactorily proved. In the absence of any motive on the part of the Appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship with A1 and hardly any circumstance clinching to point accusing finger on the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the Appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt as his culpability has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 623/2013

Decided On: 11.01.2017

 Debapriya Pal

Vs.

State of West Bengal

Coram:

A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1246

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

Whether expert opinion requires corroboration?

An expert’s opinion does not always need corroboration, but
it must be complete, i.e., based on a completeness of factualmaterial, 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 Pradesh49 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.50 It should

48 Dr. Khatri’s report, p. 394.
49 (1980) 1 SCC 704.
50 H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and Ors., 1959 Supp (1)
SCR 426.
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,51 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.52

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

Whether a person can be convicted or acquitted on sole evidence of handwriting expert?

With regard to the contention of learned senior counsel

for the appellant-accused that the signature of Ms. Ruchika on

the Memorandum was forged though she signed the same in

front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms.

Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted

the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to

handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be

conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually

to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or

circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting

expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding

about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is

competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with

others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may

not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person’s

writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert

comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in

order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced

before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is

also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but

that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court

in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting

expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding

about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows

that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be

examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing.

It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place

of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is

usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence

or by circumstantial evidence.

28) In Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay AIR

1957 SC 857, this Court has held as under:-

“11…..Learned counsel objected to this approach on a

question of proof. We are, however, unable to see any

objection. The proof of the genuineness of a document is

proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact

like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may

be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence

of a person who saw the document being written or the

signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of

the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes

provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It

may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the

contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the

contents may be of considerable value where the disputed

document purports to be a link in a chain of

correspondence, some links in which are proved to the

satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the person who

is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a

telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with

reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the

signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as

also his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of

correspondence, to speak to its authorship. In an

appropriate case the court may also be in a position to judge

whether the document constitutes a genuine link in the

chain of correspondence and thus to determine its

authorship. We are unable, therefore, to say that the

approach adopted by the courts below in arriving at the

conclusion that the letters are genuine is open to any serious

legal objection. The question, if any, can only be as to the

adequacy of the material on which the conclusion as to the

genuineness of the letters is arrived at. That however is a

matter which we cannot permit to be canvassed before us.

29) In Smt. Bhagwan Kaur vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan

Sharma And Others (1973) 4 SCC 46, this Court held as

under:-

“26…..It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of

handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting

between (PW 1/A) and other admitted writings of the

deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in

view of the main essential features of the case, not much

value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence of

a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is

generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been

quite often noticed The courts should, therefore, be wary to

give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert.

In Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh

Prasad Bhagat this Court observed that conclusions based

upon mere comparison of handwriting must at best be

indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case.”

30) It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand

writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the

same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for

acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too

much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can

rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before

acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated

either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2010

S.P.S. Rathore 

Versus

C.B.I. & Anr.

Dated:SEPTEMBER 23, 2016.

Print Page

How to appreciate expert evidence in land acquisition case?

The value of expert evidence is directly proportional to the accuracy of facts which it is supported by and is dependent upon the cogency of its reasons. The criteria adopted by the expert must be susceptible to and admit of objective verification. A mere ipse dixit of the expert will not suffice,

Equivalent Citation : AIR 1977 Kant 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Decided On: 22.09.1976

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere and Ors.Vs. KotraiahFr. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J. and M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.

Print Page

When it is not necessary to send cheque to hand writing expert for analysis in case of dishonour of cheque?

Having regard to the arguments advanced, the
entire case has been examined.
(9) To arrive at just conclusion, it would be profitable to
reproduce provisions of section 20 of the NI Act. Section
20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:-
"20.Inchoate stamped instruments- Where
one person signs and delivers to another a
paper stamped in accordance with the law
relating to negotiable instruments then in force
in India, and either wholly blank or having
written thereon an incomplete negotiable
instrument, he thereby gives prima facie
authority to the holder thereof to make or
complete, as the case may be, upon it a
negotiable instrument, for any amount
specified therein and not exceeding the amount
covered by the stamp. The person so signing
shall be liable upon such instrument, in the
capacity in which he signed the same, to any
holder in due course for such amount: provided
that no person other than a holder in due
course shall recover from the person delivering
the instrument anything in excess of the
amount intended by him to be paid
thereunder."
(10) A bare perusal of the provisions shows that there is
a clear mandate under section 20 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act to the effect that such an instrument can
be negotiated by the maker thereof by simply signing and
delivering the same to the holder in due course giving
thereby ample authority to the latter to fill up the content
of the instrument as intended by the maker thereof. Once
the execution is admitted, it shall be taken that the
cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the
complainant towards the discharge of the liability.  
(11) In the present case, it is admitted position that the
cheques were signed by the accused persons. The
provisions given in section 20 of the NI Act extracted
above makes it clear that the instrument may be wholly
blank or incomplete in any particular; in either case, the
holder has the authority to make or complete the
instrument as a negotiable one. The authority implied by
a signature to a blank instrument is so wide that the
party so signing is bound to a holder in due course even
though the holder was authorised to fill for a certain
amount. Section 20 of the Act declares that inchoate
instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the
case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority
to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability.
(12) Now coming to the facts of the present case, though
the respondent/accused had admitted that the signed
cheque was issued by him but it was denied that the
same was issued voluntarily by him in favour of the
petitioner against due payment. On the other hand, it
was sought to be contended that the cheque had been
issued for the security purposes but was misused by the
petitioner/complainant after having filled up the details
by herself. But as discussed above, as per Section 20 of
the NI Act, an individual is authorised to complete the
inchoate instrument deliver to him by filling up the
blanks. Moreover, a blank cheque could be filled up by
the 'Holder thereof', which will be a valid instrument in
the eye of Law.
(13) As regards the plea taken on behalf of the
respondent by his learned counsel that in para 18 of 
cross-examination the complainant-Sunita Debey (PW-1)
denied the suggestions made to her that blank space was
filled by herself it means blank space of the cheque was
not filled by the holder, therefore, benefit of section 20
of the NI Act cannot be given to the
complainant/petitioner. This submission of the learned
counsel is not tenable because it is a case of the
respondent/accused himself that the blank space of the
cheque was filled by the complainant/petitioner (holder
of the cheque), and being so, proposal was made by the
accused in cross-examination of the complainant. It
makes no difference whether proposal was accepted or
denied but when case itself was of accused that the
cheques were filled by the complainant then in view of
defence of the accused-persons certainly, the
complainant/petitioner has right to get benefit under
section 20 of the NI Act and there is no need to examine
the Handwriting Expert to verify whether the contents of
the cheques were written by the complainant or not.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Present
HON. SHRI JUSTICE B.D.RATHI

(Cri. Rev. No.56/2014)
Smt. Sunita Dubey Vs.Hukum Singh Ahirwar


 (Passed on 1st Day of December, 2014)
Per B.D.Rathi, J. -

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court when defendant is an illiterate farmer of rural area

Whenever a dispute regarding execution of a document is raised and defendant is an illiterate farmer of rural area, Court(s) has/have to consider the matter with great caution and care so that an innocent illiterate person may not suffer for something he was not able to understand. 

Equivalent Citation: 2013(8)ADJ617, 2013 (100) ALR 621, 2013 121 RD228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Second Appeal No. 772 of 1979

Decided On: 04.04.2013

Tika Ram and Another

Vs.

Daulat Ram and Others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Print Page

If expert's evidence is defective whether Court can substitute its opinion for that of doctor?

Needless to state that medico-legal postmortem examination is very important part of prosecution evidence and it is therefore necessary that it should be conducted by a doctor fully competent. It is the statement of doctor in the Court and not the postmortem report which a substantive evidence. In our view doctor who examines deceased and conducts postmortem is the only competent person to opine about nature of injuries and cause of death. But where competency itself is inherently defective question arises whether the Court would discard such evidence or based on such evidence of witness who is otherwise not competent would fasten the criminal liability on the Accused.

10 In the case on hand PW-6 Dr. Khamkar had stated in his examination-in-chief that he is B.A.M.S. In cross-examination he admitted that he is not qualified as M.B.B.S. He has not completed the course in Orthopedic. He had no exclusive knowledge in respect of bones. He conducted postmortem in the case of throttling for the first time. Though Dr. Khamkar stated in further cross-examination that he conducted postmortem in 40-50 cases of death due to asphyxia, fact remains that he performed postmortem in case of throttling for the first time i.e. in the present case. There is no evidence to show that Dr. Khamkar had an experience or training to conduct postmortem in case of throttling.

On the contrary unequivocal admissions elicited in cross-

examination of Dr. Khamkar indicate that he was not competent to perform postmortem in the case in question.

11 We therefore find the opinion given by Dr. Khamkar who had no experience, training and qualification in the subject as inherently defective. If expert's evidence is defective Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the doctor.

Bombay High Court

Dattatray Bajirao Lagad vs The State Of Mah on 16 October, 2015

                                         
                                       
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2012

    

       CORAM :      A. B. CHAUDHARI &
                        INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.

 Citation: 2016(1)BomCR(Cri)373

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert witness?

The courts, normally would look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory and unsustainable. We agree that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion but such report is not a conclusive one. This Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. As discussed earlier, serious doubts arise about the cause of death stated in the post-mortem reports.

Supreme Court of India

Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Citation : (2015)7 SCC178

Print Page