Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court held that under the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), Courts could arrive at a conclusion based on their own observation of disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence if there is other supporting evidence also pointing towards the conclusion arrived by the Court.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Johny Kunnumpurath House v. State of Kerala.

What was the Background of Johny Kunnumpurath House v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the wife of the revision petitioner, who was a Captain in the Indian Army, met with unnatural death, in respect of which her mother and siblings raised complaint against the revision petitioner for having caused her death.
• It was further alleged that the revision petitioner to whisk away the insurance money and other benefits of his wife by making use of forged succession certificate.
• The Trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty of commission of offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and convicted him.
• The Additional Sessions Court confirmed the verdict of the learned Magistrate and upheld the conviction.
• Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
• The learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that the appellate Court by relying upon Section 73 of the IEA wrongly compared and admitted the signatures of the petitioner which were available on record with the disputed signatures on the photocopies of the alleged forged documents and arrived at the wrong conclusion that both signatures were the same.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice G Girish observed that though it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely on the basis of the conclusions arrived by the Court, by resorting to a comparison of the records on its own accord by invoking Section 73 of IEA, in cases where there are other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions it is well within the ambit of power of the court to decide the case on the basis of the exercise undertaken by it in that regard as well.
• The Court further considered the ambit of Section 73 of IEA and concluded that the Courts could arrive at a conclusion based on their own observation of disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence if there is other supporting evidence also pointing towards the conclusion arrived by the Court.

What is Section 73 of IEA?

About:

• This Section deals with the comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. It states that -

In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may 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 so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

• This Section empowers the Court to compare writings with specimen or admitted documents.
• The phrase ‘admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court’ used in this section contemplates that the specimen document taken for comparison of writing or signature in the purported document must be undisputed one and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document.
• In case one party refuses to admit, or disputes the specimen document, it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy that the signature or writing on the specimen document is proved to be of the person concerned and only then proceed for comparison with the purported document.

Case Law:

• In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. (2003), the Supreme Court held that under Section 73 of the IEA, the Court, by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion.