Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xii) Ex.PW22/A, the expert's opinion on admitted and questioned document, regarding handwriting of the accused persons, goes unchallenged.

In the case law reported as Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

―In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convicting and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.‖

16. The second most important finding No. (x) of the learned Trial Court is that as per the Ex. PW1/D, no non-delivery certificate was issued from Ernakulum Railway Station. The non-delivery certificate furnished in the claim file Ex. PW1/C was therefore, false, forged and fabricated. This finding of the learned Trial Court is based on no legal evidence and is wholly erroneous. Ex. PW1/D is a letter from PW15 K.V.P. Namboodri, Assistant Manager/Vigilance Officer, Cochin Branch of NIC to PW1 A.K. Seth, Vigilance Officer, Delhi NIC wherein he stated that he visited the Parcel Office of Ernakulum Junction Railway Station on 27th September, 1999 and discussed the matter with Mr. Mohanan, Chief Parcel Superintendent and Mr. Surender Nath, office staff. They verified their records thoroughly and confirmed that no such non-delivery certificate was issued from their office. They further stated the signatures and the rubber stamp of Chief Parcel seen in the certificate were not genuine and nobody signs as seen in it. Neither Mr. Mohanan, Chief Parcel Superintendent nor Mr. Surender Nath, office staff have been produced in the witness box who could on the basis of original record or on identifying the signatures not to be of the officer concerned could prove that the non-delivery certificate in the claim file Ex. PW1/C was a forged document. Since neither this document has been proved to be forged by the person in whose handwriting it is purported to be, nor by the expert opinion that the signatures on the documents were not of the person concerned, it could not have been held that the non-delivery certificate was proved to be forged document. The learned Trial Court defied the fundamental legal principles of proving a document to be forged before the Court and returned a finding that the non-delivery certificate was a forged and fabricated document without there being any evidence on record. The letter of Mr. K.V. P. Namboodri, PW15, who was the Vigilance Officer, is just like the statement of an Investigating Officer, who states that the document is a forged document without proving the same from the purported author of the document or person acquainted with his handwriting or after exhibiting and proving the original documents that the same does not relate to the pertaining entries. The photocopy of the non-delivery certificate purported to be a forged document was exhibited as Ex. PW15/DA while confronting PW15. The prosecution even failed to prove the original alleged forged non-delivery certificate on record. Further this inquiry of PW15 was merely on oral request and nothing was given by Mr. Mohanan, Chief Parcel Superintendent in writing to PW15 in respect of the alleged fake certificate Ex. PW15/DA. The investigating agency had cited Mr. E.A. Sathyanasen as a witness to prove the forgery of non-delivery certificate. Once summons were served to Mr. Sathyanasen to appear as witness however he did not appear. As per the status report filed by SP CBI before this Court, it is apparent that no further serious efforts were made to examine this witness and the learned SPP gave up this witness. There is total violation of Sections 45 to 47 of the Evidence Act while returning this finding in sub-para (viii) of Para 191 of the impugned judgment. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the non-delivery certificate on record was a forged document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2184 held:

―28. We are unable to agree, in the established facts and circumstances of this case, with the view expressed by the courts below that PW1 is a competent witness to speak about the handwriting of the appellant and that the opinion of PW3 has received corroboration from the evidence of PW1. PW 1 admittedly did not receive any of those letters. He had no occasion to be familiar with the handwriting of the appellant. He is not a handwriting expert. The bald assertion of PW 1 that he was "familiar" with the handwriting of the appellant and fully "acquainted" with the contents of the letters, admittedly not addressed to him, without disclosing how he was familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, is difficult to accept. Section 67 of the Evidence Act enjoins that before a document can be looked into, it has to be proved. Section 67, of course, does not prescribed any particular mode of proof. Section 47 of the Evidence Act which occurs in the chapter relating to 'relevancy of facts' provides that the opinion of a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of a particular person is a relevant fact. Similarly opinion of a handwriting expert is also a relevant fact for identifying any handwriting. The ordinary method of proving a document is by calling as a witness the person who had executed the document or saw it being executed or signed or is otherwise qualified and competent to express his opinion as to the handwriting. There are some other modes of proof of documents also as by comparison of the handwriting as envisaged under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or through the evidence of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Act, besides by the admission of the person against whom the document is intended to be used. The receiver of the document, on establishing his acquaintance with the handwriting of the person and competence to identify the writing with which he is familiar, may also prove a document.

These modes are legitimate methods of proving documents but before they can be accepted they must bear sufficient strength to carry conviction. Keeping in view the in-conclusive and indefinite nature of the evidence of the handwriting expert PW 3 and the lack of competence on the part of PW1 to be familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, the approach adopted by the courts below to arrive at the conclusion that the disputed letters were written by the appellant to Ms. Vani on the basis of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 was not proper. The doubtful evidence of PW 1 could neither offer any corroboration to the inconclusive and indefinite opinion of the handwriting expert PW3 nor could it receive any corroboration from the opinion of PW3. We are not satisfied, in the established facts and circumstances of this case, that the prosecution has established either the genuineness or the authorship of the disputed letters allegedly written by the appellant from the evidence of PW1 or PW3. The courts below appear to have taken a rather superficial view of the matter while relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW3 to hold the appellant guilty. We find it unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW1 or PW3 in the absence of substantial independent corroboration, internally or externally, of their evidence, which in this case is totally wanting.‖