The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for caution when relying on handwriting expert opinions, acknowledging the imperfect nature of handwriting identification. While expert testimony can be valuable, it should not be blindly accepted without scrutiny.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal against a conviction under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including charges related to conspiracy and forgery. The case revolved around an allegedly fabricated mark sheet used for admission to an MBBS program.
Prosecutors sought to link the appellant to the crime based on a handwriting expert’s analysis, claiming that the writing on a postal cover matched his. However, a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case was that the original postal cover was never submitted as evidence, leaving the expert’s conclusions unsupported.
The appellant argued that without the original document, the expert’s report could not be considered credible. The court agreed, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover, which was central to their case.
Referring to the precedent set in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980), the court reiterated that while expert opinions do not always require corroboration, they must be approached with skepticism. The ruling reaffirmed that courts must assess the reasoning behind expert conclusions rather than accepting them at face value.
In a decisive ruling, the court concluded that the absence of the original postal cover rendered the handwriting analysis irrelevant. With no substantial evidence to support the prosecution’s claims, the appellant’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted.
