Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ram Chandra Mawa Lal And Others Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others Etc on 9 January, 1984
...It is now well settled that expert opinion must
always be received with great caution and perhaps
none so with more caution than the opinion of a
handwriting expert. There is a profusion of
precendential authority which holds that it is unsafe
to base a conviction solely on expert opinion
without substantial corroboration. This rule has
been universally acted upon and it has almost
become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in
Digitally signed
RAGHAV by RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.29
14:38:24 +0530
FIR No. 11/2011 State vs. Loka Nath Kabi & Ors Page 10 of 14
Ram Chandra v. State(1) that it is unsafe to treat
expert hand- writing opinion as sufficient basis for
conviction, but it may be relied upon when
supported by other items o[ internal and external
evidence.
Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs Mohammad Isa on 27 August, 1962
This Court again pointed out in Ishwari
Prasad v. Md. Isa(2) that expert evidence of hand-
writing can never be conclusive because it is, after
all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in
Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar (3) where it was
pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as
to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if
ever, take the place of substantive evidence and
before acting on such evidence, it would be
desirable to consider whether it is corroborated
either by clear_ direct evidence or by Circumstantial
evidence.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
This Court again pointed out in Ishwari
Prasad v. Md. Isa(2) that expert evidence of hand-
writing can never be conclusive because it is, after
all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in
Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar (3) where it was
pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as
to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if
ever, take the place of substantive evidence and
before acting on such evidence, it would be
desirable to consider whether it is corroborated
either by clear_ direct evidence or by Circumstantial
evidence.
Fakhruddin Ahmad vs State Of Uttaranchal & Anr on 5 September, 2008
This Court had again occasion to consider
the evidentiary value o[ expert opinion in regard to
handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State(4) and it uttered
a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky
to found a conviction solely on the evi- dence of a
handwriting expert and before acting upon such
evidence. the court must always try to see whether
it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or
circumstantial. It is interesting to note that the
same view is also echoed in the judgments of
English and American courts. Vide Gurney v.