Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has held that handwriting science is "not nearly so perfect" and requires careful examination of reasons.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of C. Kamalakkannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector Of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai (2025). 

What was the Background of C. Kamalakkannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector Of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai Case? 

• The case revolves around a forged marksheet that was used for MBBS course admission. 
• Kumari Amudha applied for admission to an MBBS course using a falsified marksheet. 
• The original marks secured by Kumari Amudha were 767 out of 1200, but the fabricated marksheet showed 1120 out of 1200 marks. 
• A criminal case was registered upon discovery of this forgery. 
• After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against C. Kamalakkannan (the appellant) and other co-accused persons. 
• The specific allegation against the appellant was that he prepared the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was transmitted. 
• The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of a handwriting expert to establish the appellant's connection to the crime. 
• The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) read with Section 109 (punishment of abetment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the trial court. 
• The appellant was initially arrested and remained in custody as an undertrial. 
• The High Court upheld the conviction and modified sentence passed by the lower courts in the revision petition. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • The Supreme Court noted that the highest case of the prosecution against the appellant was that the postal cover bore his handwriting. 
  • The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide the original postal cover as evidence. 
  • The Supreme Court observed that the postal cover was never exhibited or properly identified in evidence. 
  • The Supreme Court referenced Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) case regarding principles for reliance on handwriting expert evidence. 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that handwriting science is "not nearly so perfect" and requires careful examination of reasons. 
  • The Supreme Court concluded that since the postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there was no basis to accept that it bore the appellant's handwriting. 
  • The Supreme Court determined that "the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover." 
  • The Supreme Court held that the conviction as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court and High Court "does not stand to scrutiny." 
  • The Supreme Court granted the appellant "a clean acquittal" by allowing the appeal and quashing the judgments of all lower courts.

What is Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) talks about Evidence of Expert under Section 45 of IEA. 
• Section 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 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. Such persons are called experts. 
  • The IEA gives due importance to the opinion of an expert, whereas the opinion of an ordinary person is of no value. 
  • The evidence of expert is not conclusive and how much reliance is to be placed on such evidence or how much weightage is to be given to it is the domain to the court concerned. 
• The same section has now been covered under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

Landmark Judgment 

• Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980)  
  • The Supreme Court in this case established several crucial principles regarding the evidentiary value of handwriting expert testimony: 
    • Expert Evidence Status: The Court rejected the notion that handwriting expert evidence should be treated with inherent suspicion or requires mandatory corroboration in all cases. The judgment clarified that a handwriting expert is "no accomplice" and their testimony should not be automatically condemned to a lower class of evidence. 
    • Scientific Limitations: The Court acknowledged that handwriting analysis is an imperfect science compared to more developed forensic techniques like fingerprint analysis. The judgment noted that "the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher" of an incorrect opinion. 
    • Approach to Expert Testimony: The Court advocated for a cautious approach when evaluating handwriting expert testimony, stating that courts should "proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it." 
    • No Mandatory Corroboration: The judgment explicitly rejected any rule of law or prudence "that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated." It emphasized that in cases where the expert's reasoning is convincing and there is no reliable contradictory evidence, uncorroborated testimony may be accepted. 
    • Basis for Evaluation: The Court emphasized that an expert's opinion should be "tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him" rather than being viewed with initial suspicion. The judgment stated that "an expert deposes and not decides," highlighting the advisory rather than determinative nature of expert testimony. 
    • Flexible Approach: The Court advocated for a case-by-case approach rather than rigid rules, stating "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."