Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The petitioners filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure P/16) for discharge, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2013 and the court framed the charges u/s 467 & 468 r/w 120B of the IPC.

7. The petitioners have filed the present petition on the grounds that the entire case of forgery of the Wills is based on the opinions of the Handwriting and Finger Print experts, which itself are based on the photocopies of the original Wills. Opinion of handwriting expert is based on certified photocopy of Will dated 04.01.2008 and opinion of thumb impression is based on coloured photocopy of both Wills dated 28.06.2003 & 04.01.2008. Admitted signature of the testator are also taken from photocopies of three cheques dated 29.10.2007.

30.We can highlight some reasons here as to why the level of certainty of an expert opinion is affected by having only copies to analyze.

Loss of detail - intricate pen direction

31.Pen direction is a very critical factor in the evaluation of handwriting. Copies make it difficult and sometimes impossible to follow intricate writing movements essential for reaching accurate conclusions. Not only is direction important, but also the pressure of the writing instrument can tell us more about the condition of the writer and the writing surface.

47.Even otherwise opinion of handwriting or finger print expert is a weak type of evidence. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the probative value of opinion of the hand writing expert and as to what weightage should be given to it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined in S.P.S. Rathore v. C.B.I. and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4486 that evidence of handwriting expert is only opinion evidence and not conclusive. It cannot be relied upon, unless corroborated by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

51.In the case in hand, the handwriting or the finger print experts have not made any efforts to get the photographs from the original Will even when the same was easily available in the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 himself, therefore, the comparative signatures on the photocopy of a document, does not become a reliable source of comparison with the disputed signature or thumb impression. The opinion of the experts based on examination on photocopy is not in accordance with the science of handwriting examination. Therefore, in my HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE Abhay Jain and others vs. State of M.P. and Anr. opinion, the reports and expert opinions cannot be given weightage and are liable to be rejected on this point itself. Conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of such reports. Further, no other corroboration of these reports is available in the record and in that situation no other result but the acquittal can be recorded. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioners on such basis is nothing but an abuse of process of law.