Whether prosecution for murder can be quashed if suicide note is in handwriting of deceased?

 No doubt, it is recorded
in the post-mortem report that the cause of death in this case was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and the suicide note is in the
handwriting of deceased, but this by itself cannot rule out the possibility
of murder being committed by petitioners. It is so said because the
suicide note is undated and the aspect of ante-mortem hanging cannot be
considered in abstract by this Court in the light of medical literature,
sought to be relied upon by respondents. Whether death of deceased was

homicidal or suicidal is an aspect which cannot be pre-judged at this initial stage. In any case, presence of lividity over the back and other areas prima facie justifies framing of charge under Section 302/34 IPC, as at this initial stage, only a prima facie opinion is to be formed. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 12, 2019
 CRL.REV.P. 645/2017 & Crl.M.A. 14133/2017

SUKHBIR KATARIA Vs  STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Citation: 2019 SCC ONLINE Del 7603

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

Rajasthan HC: What procedure is to be adopted for obtaining specimen hand-writing to get accurate report?

I may in this connection state the rule as to how the specimen hand-writing should be taken. In obtaining a specimen hand-writing the same type of paper, the same colour of ink and the same kind of medium as were used in the disputed handwriting should be used as far as possible. 

Rajasthan High Court

Abdul Gani And Anr. vs Devi Lal And Anr. on 5 October, 1959

Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Raj 77

Bench: L Chhangani

Print Page

Supreme Court: Golden rules for proving handwriting of a person

This Court in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326 has held that the premise of the witness claiming familiarity with the handwriting of the author must be tested. "11. Both under s.45 and s.47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premise of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of opinion in the other case."

 The prosecution's failure to produce material before the Special Judge on which PW.5 claimed familiarity with the handwriting of accused No.1 is fatal. It can safely be stated that the prosecution has failed to establish the premise of witness in order to allow the Special Court to appreciate the veracity of assertions made by PW.5.

 In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay., (1958) SCR 328 at page 342 this Court held as follows: "It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in ss.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."

The question for our consideration is whether there is any credibility in the evidence of PW.5. Admittedly, PW.5 was not posted in CANCIGO. He came from CANGILT for the purpose of auditing in April, 1992 i.e after the payment of brokerage (paid on 10th March, 1992).Therefore, the question arises whether PW.5 was familiar with the handwriting of accused No.1 in the course of his business as he was neither from CANCIGO nor was working under accused No.1. PW.5 had neither stated that he had seen accused No.1 writing the endorsement nor he himself was the recipient of any correspondence made by accused No.1. Therefore, it is clear that PW.5 had no prior knowledge of the handwriting of accused No.1 or the signatures of the author, and he was not a part of the chain of correspondence to speak of its authors. It can be safely stated that PW.5 does not come within the ambit of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act to provide evidence regarding the handwriting of accused No.1.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

[Criminal Appeal No.1226 of 2001]

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Dated;1 July 2013.

Citation; 2014 CRLJ 1380 SC

Print Page