Supreme court: What are essential pre-requisite for comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones U/S 73 of the Evidence Act?

  The High Court fortunately realised the pitfall in the reasoning of the Trial Court. But in an over-anxiety to somehow convict A-7, the High Court adopted a very peculiar route, namely that of undertaking the task of comparing the admitted signatures/ handwritings with the disputed ones Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. {Para 130}

131. For invoking Section 73, there must first have been some signature or writing admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person. The Section empowers the Court also to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures.

132. There was no signature or writing available before the High Court, which had been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made. The High Court did not also direct A-7 to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling a comparison. Without following the procedure so prescribed in Section 73, the High Court invented a novel procedure, to uphold the conviction handed over by the Trial Court through a wrong reasoning.

133. In fact, the High Court considered Exhibit P-75 to be the document containing the admitted handwritings and signatures of A-7 and compared what was found therein with the handwritings/signatures found in Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90 and P-92.

134. But what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was never admitted by A- 7 to be in his handwriting. Exhibit P-75 was marked through PW-30, the handwriting expert, and not even by the I.O. At least if the I.O. had identified and marked the specimen writings and signatures of A-7 as Exhibit P-75, it was possible for the prosecution to contend that the specimen signatures stood proved. But the I.O. did not identify Exhibit P-75. PW-30 through whom Exhibit P-75 was marked did not directly obtain the specimen writings of A-7. The statement of PW-30 that the specimen writings of A-7 are in Exhibit P-75 was only hearsay evidence, as he did not directly obtain those specimen signatures. Thus, Exhibit P- 75 never stood proved.

135. Even in the questioning Under Section 313 of the Code, no specific question was put to A-7 whether Exhibits P-66, P-76, P-90, P-92 and P- 75 were in his handwritings and whether they contained his signatures. Therefore, what was contained in Exhibit P-75 was not even admitted signatures.

136. In the absence of either admission or proof of the admitted signatures, the High Court could not have resorted to Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

137. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court as though A-7 committed forgery and cheating by making applications for the issue of demand drafts in the names of bogus firms is wholly unsustainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2417 of 2010, 16 of 2011 and 2444 of 2010

Decided On: 15.06.2023

A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0723/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

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

How to appreciate evidence if suicide letter written by accused was recovered from body of deceased?

  The underlying principle deducible from the observations extracted above is that though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a Rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion.{Para 65}

66. In the instant case, with regard to authorship of the suicide letter, the Trial Court though returned a finding in favour of the prosecution by relying solely on the expert report but did not record its satisfaction having regard to its own observations with respect to the admitted and disputed writings. It also did not examine whether in the proven facts and circumstances of the case it would be safe to rely on the expert report. It be noted that Section 73 of the IEA, 1872 enables a Court to compare the words or figures written by a person present in Court with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. The Trial Court therefore could have undertaken such an exercise. But, in the instant case, there appears no such exercise undertaken by the Trial Court. What is important is that in the instant case there is no witness statement identifying the handwriting of Neeraj or disclosing that Neeraj wrote the suicide letter in his presence. There is also no evidence to explain the relevance of the contents of the suicide letter. Interestingly, the suicide letter indicts one Chhote Porwal. As to why such indictment was made; whether it was with reference to some other event contemplated, the prosecution evidence is silent. Besides that, there is no evidence to show that the investigating officer queried person(s) conversant with the handwriting of the deceased to Rule out possibility of the suicide letter being in the writing of the deceased himself. In our view, such an exercise was necessary to lend assurance to the prosecution story of the suicide letter being written by Neeraj to mask the murder, because, firstly, the death on its face was not suicidal, and, secondly, it could have ruled out possibility of it being written in contemplation of some other event. Seen in that light, barring the expert report, there exists no internal or external evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution story that the suicide letter was written by Neeraj.

67. In addition to the above, we find it quite difficult to accept as to why Neeraj would leave a suicide letter written by him in a pocket of the trouser worn by the deceased, particularly, when the injuries even to a layman were homicidal. Notably, there were eight ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. 

68. A glance at those injuries would reflect that five of them were perforating or penetrating wounds cavity deep. Out of those, two were on chest and three on abdomen.  Such injuries are clearly homicidal therefore, masking this homicidal event as a suicide does not appeal to logic. Further, the injuries are not of same dimension. In these circumstances, a question would arise as to why would Neeraj who has no proven connection with the deceased or the co-Accused Santosh, or for that matter the apartment where the dead body was found, make a futile effort to mask the event of murder and thereby leave a trace of his own culpability. To answer that, the prosecution has led no admissible evidence. Thus, even if we assume that a suicide letter was found, at what stage it was written - prior to, or post the murder, or in connection with some other event which the deceased contemplated - is anybody's guess.

69. In light of the discussion above, taking into account that Neeraj has denied the incriminating circumstance of writing the suicide letter and no internal or external evidence, save the expert report, supports the writing of suicide letter by Neeraj, we are of the considered view that though the expert evidence was admissible as an opinion on the writing in the suicide letter but, on overall assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, solely on its basis, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the suicide letter retrieved from the trouser of the deceased was written by Neeraj.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court: Evidence of Hand-writing Expert must be Corroborated by either Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

 It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the

hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that

such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or

circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. …….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 quality 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 Davis v.

Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in

his evidence).”

5. …….

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence

Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to

identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in

questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant

fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon

before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there

need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a

court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be

no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the

opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the

sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court

while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to

proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all

other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020

PADUM KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated:January 14, 2020.

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to compare signature on photostat copy with standard signature?

 Another reason for non-suiting of the plaintiff was that though the plaintiff had examined a document expert but since he had compared the alleged signatures of the defendant from the photostat copy with the standard signatures, the same could not be done. The relevant authorities in that regard cited by learned counsel for the parties have been discussed. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that no reliance can be placed upon the report of document expert since the signatures could not be compared from the photostat copy.

18. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned here that under Order 7, Rule 14, CPC, the original documents in possession of the plaintiff ought to have been attached along with the plaint. However, strangely enough only photostat copies thereof were filed. The plaintiff would have been on better footing if the pronote and receipt were scribed by a regular Deed Writer with an entry being there in his register in the ordinary course of business containing signatures of the parties and those of attesting witnesses, then the chances of the pronote and receipt having been forged/fabricated would have been minimized but it is not so in the present case. There could be a possibility of the documents being fabricated, the signatures of defendant being lifted from any document containing his admitted signatures and placed on other documents by superimposition as has been observed in authority by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e. Sh. Surjit Rai v. Sh. Prem Kumar Khera and Ors. MANU/PH/0297/1995 : 1995(2) PLR 140 and then suit filed on the basis thereof stating that the original had been lost.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

RSA No. 1122 of 2014 (O&M)

Decided On: 05.02.2019

 Gurdial Singh Vs.   Dalveer Kaur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harminder Singh Madaan, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 P&H 66

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can allow application for seeking opinion of handwriting expert in cheque dishonour case at belated stage?

 A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the following grounds:

a) During the entire cross-examination of the respondent on behalf of the petitioner there was not a single suggestion put, regarding handwriting in the contents of the cheques;

b) There was no cross-examination even in the form of suggestion to show that the ink in which the contents are filled and that of the signatures on those cheques was different;

c) The petitioner during his cross-examination admitted to have received the statutory notice (Exhibit-16) but had not replied it when he could have raised such a dispute by sending a reply;

d) The defence was tried to be built at a belated stage and was an afterthought.

As can be seen the grounds put-forth by the learned Magistrate are duly corroborated by the fact situation and there is no dispute about correctness of availability of these grounds. In my considered opinion, these are indeed unassailable grounds which cumulatively demonstrate as to how filing of the application (Exhibit-75) at that stage was clearly an afterthought and the petitioner had not raised such defence at an appropriate stage.

8. Coupled with the above grounds, it is equally important to note that there is one more reason which justifies the observations and the conclusions of the learned Magistrate. As is pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent, even in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner had not come out with any such concrete defence which would have justified his request which he had made by the application (Exhibit-75). He has given evasive replies and have denied all the facts simplicitor except by saying that he had given blank cheques to the respondent and that the case was false. He could have but has not at all stated that he had issued blank signed cheques which the respondent has misused.

9. In the cases of Nandkumar and Bandeppa (Supra) the accused therein had taken the defence at earlier point of time, unlike the petitioner who has applied at a belated stage which demonstrates same obvious motive to protract the trial. His case is rather covered by the instances in Prakash Sevantilal Vora and Simratmal Hiralal Gandhi (supra).

10. Taking into account all these aspects, I find no apparent illegality committed by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. The grounds referred to herein-above clearly justify the conclusion reached by him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2018

Decided On: 29.04.2019

 Niranjan  Vs. Swapnil Nitin Pagare

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 789 Bom

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

When court should reject application for referring cheque to handwriting expert in cheque dishonour case?

 In the present case, the respondent No. 1 is not disputing his signature on the subject cheque. The only contention is that a blank cheque was obtained by the petitioner by way of a security. In this regard, it would be significant to note that the respondent No. 1 has neither issued any reply to the notice nor has entered into the witness box in his defence. The application for referring the subject cheque to the Handwriting Expert was filed on 13/04/2015 and shortly thereafter, the respondent No. 1 closed his side on 15/04/2015. The application does not mention as to under which provision, the same is filed. During the course of arguments at bar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that it is filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 243 of Cr.P.C. speaks about the evidence for defence. Subsection (2) of Section 243 of Cr.P.C. provides that if the accused, "after he had entered upon his defence" applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of the witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination or the production of any document or the other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such an application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such a ground shall be recorded by the Magistrate in writing. It can, thus, be seen that under subsection (2) of Section 243 of Cr.P.C., the accused can apply for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose as envisaged in the said section. In the present case, as noticed earlier, the respondent No. 1 had not entered into the witness box. The respondent No. 1 was the best person to state on oath that the portion except the signature appearing on the cheque, was not in his handwriting. It is not necessary that the entire cheque has to be filled in by the accused for the purposes of raising presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Act. It is sufficient that the cheque is signed by the accused. The question of bonafides and whether or not the application is filed with a view to delay the proceedings, has to be examined in the context of the aforesaid facts obtaining in this case. The learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion and has recorded in his order that the application was filed in order to delay the proceedings. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in interfering with the said discretionary order, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It may be significant to note that the learned Sessions Judge, in para 6 of the impugned judgment, has accepted that "there is no hard and fast rule that the body of the cheque has to be filled in by the accused to make him liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and it may also be that when a blank cheque signed by the accused is issued, there is an implied authority to fill in the cheque". Once having accepted this and in the face of the specific finding by the Magistrate that the application was filed with a view to delay, in my considered view, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order of the Magistrate, rejecting the application.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Criminal Writ Petition No. 132 of 2015

Decided On: 09.01.2018

 The Quepem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Vs. Seby Noronha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.V. Bhadang, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 263

Print Page

When court should not send disputed signature for analysis to handwriting expert?

 The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the disputed signatures, which are to be compared with the admitted signatures are of the year 1995 and whereas specimen signatures obtained in the open Court are of the year 2004 and the gap of the two signatures is about nine years and in such a situation the opinion of the handwriting expert is not of much use in resolving the issue in the suit. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of our High Court inAnnapurnamma v. Bhima Sankara Rao, AIR 1960 AP 359 wherein it has been held (Para 8):—

“It is not of much use to compare a signature of a person said to have been made in 1950 with that made six years earlier in 1944 as there is likely to be some change in the signature”.

 5. Coming to the facts on hand, the disputed signatures are of the year 1995 and whereas the specimen signatures are of the year 2004, there is a gap of nearly nine years between the two signatures. Sofar as signatures of the petitioners appearing in written statement etc., there is every possibility of his disguising His style of signature so as to make them dissimilar with the disputed signatures. Since there are no contemporaneous signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures, there is no useful purpose in sending the suit documents to an expert for his opinion. The trial Court considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the application. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Before B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.

Smt. Renu Devi Kedia 

V

Smt. Seetha DeviCivil Revn. Petn. No. 3121 of 2004

Decided on August 31, 2004

Citation:2004 SCC OnLine AP 664 : AIR 2005 AP 180 : (2004) 3 AP LJ 203 (HC) : (2004) 5 ALD 700 : (2004) 6 ALT 429 : (2004) 2 An WR 718

Print Page

When accused can be held guilty for cheating and forgery?

 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that
the petitioner happened to be a suspended employee of the

Punjab National Bank and the factum of his having
approached PW-1 for purchase of electronics goods on
11.09.1998 and having presented forged demand draft to
him in lieu of the payment of said electronics goods has been
duly proved on record by the prosecution.
 Dr. B.A. Vaid, handwriting expert, entered the
witness box as PW-6 and he deposed on the basis of material

on record which included the admitted handwriting of the
petitioner/accused as well as his handwriting which were
obtained during the course of investigation that these
handwritings and those found on the forged demand draft
were of one and the same person i.e. accused/petitioner.
19. In my considered view, from the material which
was produced on record by the prosecution, all the
incriminating factors were pointing towards the guilt of the
accused. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 39 of 2010

 Date of decision: 26.08.2016

Sunil Bhaseen V State of Himachal Pradesh 
Coram :
 Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Citation: 2017 CRLJ322

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 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

At which stage magistrate can permit accused to send cheque to handwriting expert for ascertaining age of ink?

After the petitioner was examined, he made an application (Exhibit 59),
praying that the cheque in question be sent to the handwriting expert and
also to an expert for asserting age of the ink.
The accused contended that the cheque had been given to the
complainant - Society as and by way of security, as the petitioner had
stood as guarantor for the loan taken by one Arjun Bhagat from the Bank.
According to the petitioner, it was a blank signed cheque and that there
was bound to be difference between the age of the ink of the signature and

the ink in which the other matter was written. This application was
opposed to by the complainant stating the accused had not disputed the
signature on the cheque, that he had given the cheque to the complainant.
has also not been disputed, and that, therefore, for ascertaining the
handwriting with respect to the remaining matter on the cheque, it was not
necessary to send the cheque for any opinion as to the other writing on the
cheque.
The Magistrate by his order dated 17-10-2013, rejected the said
application primarily holding that since the accused had admitted his
signature over disputed cheque, he had given an authority to the
complainant to pay the debt and, therefore, no purpose would be served by
sending the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert.
Being aggrieved thereby, the accused has approached this Court by
filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court.
 I have heard the learned respective Counsel for the parties.
With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone
through the petition and the annexures thereto.
 A perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate, inter alia,
indicates that the possibility of the other writing on the cheque to be not of
the accused, was clear to the mind of the Magistrate himself. He was,
however, of the view that, that aspect was immaterial. Whether that aspect
would be immaterial or not, would depend on facts of each case.

 I find that in his examination under Section 313 of the Code,
the accused has stated that he would examine himself on oath as a defence
witness. The same statement is made by his Counsel before this Court.
According to the accused, he stood as a guarantor for one Arjun Bhagat
and on the date of filing of the complaint, the Bank had issued a 'no dues'
certificate to the said debtor Arjun Bhagat.
 These contentions cannot be examined in the present petition.
However, it would be open for the accused to adduce evidence to that
effect. After adducing the evidence, the accused should be permitted to
apply afresh for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert and the
expert for determination of the age of the ink, provided the relevancy of
sending the cheque to such expert would be obvious in view of the stand
and defence taken by the accused.
Since the accused can legitimately put forth his contentions and seek
appropriate relief afresh from the Magistrate, after leading defence
evidence, interference in the matter, at this stage, is not necessary.
However, the learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case
expeditiously and in accordance with law.

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

 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2013

Ankush s/o. Gopinath Ghogare Vs The State of Maharashtra.

 CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
 DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2014
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2642

Print Page

When court should not permit appointment of handwriting expert for comparison of signature on rent receipt?

 I also find some substance in the argument of Mr. Sen that in
the finding recorded by the Learned Judge at the time of allowing of the
application under Section 7 (2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 is nothing but a
tenttive findings and ultimately the petitioner/defendant no.3 will get
chance to adduce evidence when the full fledged trial would take place in
Ejectment suit.
 12. Therefore, considering the submissions of Mr. Sen and also
considering the decision reported in 1987(1) CHN (Cal) (Supra) I have no
hesitation to hold that the present revisional application should not be
sustained in the eye of law and it should be dismissed.
 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee
C.O.1333 of 2015
Subir Saha
Vs
 Sankarlal Mitra & Ors.

Judgment on : August 7, 2015.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)374 Cal

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