Pranav B Prem

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that while expert evidence may not always require corroboration, courts must exercise caution when relying on the testimony of handwriting experts due to the imperfect nature of the science of handwriting identification.

Case Background

A division bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the appeal of C. Kamalakkannan against his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around the fabrication of a marksheet used for admission to an MBBS course.

The prosecution’s case was that Kumari Amudha, an MBBS aspirant, had submitted a forged marksheet to secure admission. While her actual score was 767 out of 1200, the fabricated marksheet falsely reflected a score of 1120 out of 1200. During the investigation, the prosecution alleged that the appellant, C. Kamalakkannan, had prepared and sent the forged marksheet via a postal cover. A handwriting expert’s report was relied upon to establish that the handwriting on the postal cover matched that of the appellant. However, a crucial lapse in the prosecution’s case was that the original postal cover, which supposedly contained the forged marksheet, was never presented as evidence before the trial court. The prosecution attempted to use a photocopy as secondary evidence, but the defense strongly contested its admissibility.

The trial court convicted the appellant based on the expert opinion, and the appellate court as well as the High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant then challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was based solely on the handwriting expert’s report without the foundational evidence of the original postal cover.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that in the absence of the original postal cover, the handwriting expert’s report could not be relied upon. The Court, finding merit in this contention, noted:

“Non-exhibiting of the original document would lead to the only possible inference that the questioned document i.e., the postal cover was never proved as per law and as a consequence, the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert's report concluding that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant is rendered redundant.”

 

“we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly posted. Since the postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting the prosecution theory that the same bore the handwriting of the accused appellant. As a result, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court as well as the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal.”

Reliance on Precedents

The Court cited the landmark case of Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, which laid down principles for assessing expert testimony under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated key observations from this judgment:

“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.”

 

“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.”

 

“We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized 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.”

Cause Title: C. Kamalakkanna V. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No:  SLP(Criminal) No(s). 3044 of 2021

Citation: 2025 INSC 309

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]