Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about the evidentiary value of expert witnesses, particularly handwriting experts.  
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria. 

Facts

• The victim, H.D. Sonawala, was the Area Organizer of Cherak Pharmaceuticals, Bombay and lived alone in a quarter within the Parsi Dharamshala, Jabalpur. 
• On 12th July, 1972, he returned home at midnight after dinner at a friend’s house. 
• The next morning, his driver (PW 9) and servant (PW 6) found the house gate locked and received no response. 
• They opened the lock with a spare key and found Sonawala murdered in his bed. 
• A police report was lodged, and the Station House Officer (PW 28) arrived at the scene. 
• The room was in disarray, and various articles were seized, including a prescription pad (Ex. P.9). 
• Page G of Ex. P.9 contained a Hindi note, purportedly written by the accused Murari Lal, mentioning his unemployment and signed “Balle Singh.” 
• The post-mortem revealed a deep incised wound on the victim’s neck (7.5 inches long, 2 inches wide), cutting vital blood vessels and the trachea, leading to death. 
• The case remained unsolved for months until 18th February, 1973, when Petrick (A-1) was arrested for another theft case. 
• A search of Petrick’s room led to the recovery of two choppers and 234 stolen items, including a tie-pin and a cheque book belonging to the deceased. 
• On 19th February, 1973, Murari Lal (A-2) was arrested and led police to his uncle Suraj Prasad (A-4), from whom Sonawala’s wristwatch was recovered. 
• Handwriting Evidence: 
  • Murari Lal’s specimen writings (Ex. P.41 - P.54) were collected and compared with Page G of Ex. P.9. 
  • A handwriting expert (PW 15) opined that both writings matched. 
  • PW 8, claiming to be familiar with Murari Lal’s handwriting, supported this evidence. 
• Trial and Appeals: 
  • Suraj Prasad was acquitted, and Gabriel (A-3) was convicted under Section 411 IPC. 
  • Petrick and Murari Lal were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death, but the High Court commuted their sentences to life imprisonment. 
  • Petrick did not appeal further, but Murari Lal filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved 

• Whether opinion of handwriting expert can be relied on for conviction of the appellant? 
• Whether the appellant in the facts of the present case can be convicted? 

Observations 

• Evidentiary value of handwriting expert: 
  • The opinion of an expert is relevant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
  • Further, Section 46 of IEA makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. 
• The Court after referring to the important case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) laid down the following points with respect to opinion of handwriting expert: 
  • There is no rule of law or prudence that opinion of handwriting expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. 
  • However, having regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting the approach adopted should be one of caution. 
  • Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. 
  • The Court held that 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. 
• Further, it was also observed by the Court that the argument that the Court should not venture to compare writings itself is also completely out of force. 
  • Section 73 of IEA expressly enables the Court to compare the disputed handwritings with admitted or proved writings  to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. 
  • It was held by the Court that it is the plain duty of the Court to compare the handwritings in order to come to teh conclusion. 
• Conviction of the Appellant: 
  • The Court held that the evidence relating to handwriting cannot be relied on in the facts of the present case. 
  • However, the Court relied on other circumstances like a writing made by the appellant was left on the deceased’s table that night and also there was recovery of dead man’s watch at the instance of the appellant. 
• The Court held the appellant guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted.

Conclusion

• The Court in this case talked about the evidentiary value of the evidence given by the handwriting expert.