Summary
The appellant's conviction under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with 109 IPC rested on a handwriting expert's opinion that a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet bore his handwriting. The Court held that, since the original postal cover was never exhibited or proved and the expert did not even identify the cover examined, the existence of the disputed document was not established, the expert report was rendered redundant and the conviction could not stand; the appellant was acquitted.
Issues
- Whether a conviction can rest on a handwriting expert's opinion about a document (the postal cover) when the original document was never exhibited or proved in evidence.
- What weight is to be given to the uncorroborated opinion of a handwriting expert.
- Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant prepared the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was transmitted.
Provisions considered
- Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was convicted of conspiracy, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using a forged document as genuine, with abetment, on the allegation that he prepared the postal cover in which a fabricated MBBS marksheet was sent. The Court found the only link to him, the handwriting on the cover, unproved and set aside the conviction. (¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 11, 15)
- Section 45 (opinion of experts), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Relying on Murari Lal v. State of M.P., the Court restated that a handwriting expert's opinion is relevant under Section 45, need not invariably be corroborated and carries no initial suspicion, but must be approached cautiously by probing the reasons for the opinion and weighing all other evidence. Here the opinion lost its value because the document it concerned was never proved. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Held
- There is no rule of law or prudence that a handwriting expert's opinion must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. Given the imperfect nature of the science, the court's approach is one of caution: the reasons for the opinion must be probed, all other relevant evidence considered, and corroboration may be sought in appropriate cases, but an opinion supported by unchallenged reasons cannot be rejected solely for want of corroboration. The expert deposes and does not decide. (¶ 12)
- Where the original postal cover said to bear the accused's handwriting was not available on record, the accused objected to a copy being exhibited, and the cover consequently could not be exhibited, the prosecution failed to lead primary evidence of the document. The trial court could not then conclude that the handwriting on the disputed document was that of the accused; the questioned document was never proved as per law, and the expert report concluding that it bore the accused's handwriting was rendered redundant. (¶ 13)
- The handwriting expert (PW-18) stated only that he received certain exhibits and 'a postal cover', without identifying the cover examined as the one allegedly bearing the accused's handwriting. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the very existence of the disputed postal cover, and there was no question of accepting that it bore the appellant's handwriting; the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court did not stand scrutiny and the appellant was entitled to a clean acquittal. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. Judgments of the trial court (25.10.2016), the appellate court (23.10.2017) and the High Court (16.04.2019) quashed and set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges. Pending applications disposed of.