Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963
This Court
again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v.
Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert
evidence of handwriting can never be
conclusive because it is, after all, opinion
evidence, and this view was reiterated in
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar
Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 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
substantiate evidence and before acting on
such evidence, it would be desirable to
consider whether it is corroborated either by
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 17 / 21
clear direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence.
Section 4 in The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Raksha Jindal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 March, 2015
19. Perusal of the above gives an impression that even after insertion of
Section 311A Cr.P.C. which came into effect on 23.06.2006, an investigating
officer cannot obtain sample handwriting /signatures from a person accused
of having committed an offence during investigation except as per the
procedure as prescribed U/s 311A Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that
aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar &
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 14 / 21
Anr (Supra) was distinguished by another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Rekha Sharma Vs. CBI, Crl. Appeal No. 124/2013 wherein it was
held as under:-
S.Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1996
22. Reliance is also place on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S.
Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 wherein on the aspect of
value to be attached to the opinion of handwriting expert, it was held as
under:-
Magan Bihari Lal vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 1977
In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab
(1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the evidence of a
handwriting expert, this Court opined:
Ram Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1956
".........We think it would be extremely
hazardous to condemn the appellant merely
on the strength of opinion evidence of a
handwriting expert. It is now well settled
that expert opinion must always be received
with great caution and perhaps none so with
more caution that the opinion of handwriting
expert. There is a profusion of precedential
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 hs
almost become a rule of law. It was held by
this Court in Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat
expert handwriting opinion as sufficient
basis for conviction, but it may be relied
upon when supported by other items in
internal and external evidence.
Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs Mohammad Isa on 27 August, 1962
This Court
again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v.
Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert
evidence of handwriting can never be
conclusive because it is, after all, opinion
evidence, and this view was reiterated in
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar
Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 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
substantiate evidence and before acting on
such evidence, it would be desirable to
consider whether it is corroborated either by
CA No. 132/2021 Rahim Dad Khan Vs. State Page 17 / 21
clear direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence.