S.

Name of the Equivalent Court Date Relevant Portion

No. Case Citations
1. State of 1992 AIR Supreme 15th July “ But since the science of identification
Maharashtra Etc. 2100, 1992 Court of 1992 of handwriting by comparison is not an
V/s. Sukhdeo SCR (3) 480 India infallible one, prudence demands that
Singh & Anr. before acting on such opinion the Court
Etc. Etc.
should be fully satisfied about the
authorship of the admitted writings
which is made the sole basis for
comparison and the Court should also
be fully satisfied about the competence
and credibility of the handwriting
expert. It is indeed true that by nature
and habit, over a period of time, each
individual develops certain traits which
give a distinct character to his writings
making it possible to identify the author
but it must at the same time be realised
that since handwriting experts are
generally engaged by one of the
contesting parties they, consciously or
unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of
an opinion which is helpful to the party
engaging him. That is why we come
across cases of conflicting opinions
given by two handwriting experts
engaged by opposite parties. It is,
therefore, necessary to exercise extra
care and caution in evaluating their
opinion before accepting the same. So
courts have as a rule of prudence
refused to place implicit faith on the
opinion evidence of a handwriting
expert. Normally courts have
considered it dangerous to base a
conviction solely on the testimony of a
handwriting expert because such
evidence is not regarded as conclusive.
Since such opinion evidence cannot
take the place of substantive evidence,
courts have, as a rule of prudence,
looked for corroboration before acting
 on such evidence. True it is, there is no
rule of law that the evidence of a
handwriting expert cannot be acted
upon unless substantially corroborated
but courts have been slow in placing
implicit reliance on such opinion
evidence, without more, because of the
imperfect nature of the science of
identification of handwriting and its
accepted fallibility. There is no absolute
rule of law or even of prudence which
has ripened into a rule of law that in no
case can the court base its findings
solely on the opinion of a handwriting
expert but the imperfect and frail
nature of the science of identification of
the author by comparison of his
admitted handwriting with the disputed
ones has placed a heavy responsibility
on the courts to exercise extra care and
caution before acting on such opinion.
Before a court can place reliance on the
opinion of an expert, it must be shown
that he has not betrayed any bias and
the reasons on which he has based his
opinion are convincing and satisfactory.
It is for this reason that the courts are
wary to act solely on the evidence of a
handwriting expert; that, however, does
not mean that even if there exist
numerous striking peculiarities and
mannerisms which stand out to identify
the writer, the court will not act on the
expert's evidence. In the end it all
depends on the character of the
evidence of the expert and the facts and
circumstances of each case.
2. Magan Bihari 1977 AIR Supreme 15th “We think it would be extremely
Lal V/s. State of 1091, 1977 Court of February hazardous to condemn the appellant
Punjab  SCR (2)1007 India 1977 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 than
the opinion of a 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
has almost become a rule of law. It was
held by this Court in Ram Chandra v.
State of U.P. , 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 of
internal and external evidence. This Court
again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md.
Isa , that expert evidence of handwriting
can never be conclusive because it is, after
all, opinion evidence, and this view was
reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Suboth
Kumar 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. This Court had
an occasion to consider the evidentiary
value of expert opinion in regard to
handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of
M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326, and it uttered a
note of caution pointing out that it would
be risky found a conviction solely on the
evidence of handwriting expert before
acting upon such evidence, the Court must
always try to see whether it is
corroborated by other evidence, direct or
circumstantial.
3. State (Delhi 1979 AIR 14, Supreme 26th “The handwriting expert's function is to
Administration) 1979 SCR (1) Court of September opine after a scientific comparison of the
vs Pali Ram  931 India 1978 disputed writing with the proved or
admitted writing with regard to the points
of similarity and dissimilarity in the two
sets of writings. The Court should then
 compare the handwritings with its own
eyes for a proper assessment of the value
of the total evidence” “Although there is
no legal bar to the Judge using his own
eyes to compare the disputed writing with
the admitted writing, even without the aid
of the evidence of any handwriting expert,
the Judge should, as a matter of prudence
and caution, hesitate to base his finding
with regard to the identity of a
handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor
of the prosecution case against a person
accused of an offence solely on
comparison made by himself. It is,
therefore, not advisable that a Judge
should take upon himself the task of
comparing the admitted writing with the
disputed one to find out whether the two
agree with each other; and the prudent
course is to obtain the opinion and
assistance of an expert.”
4. Lalit Popli V/s. Not Supreme 18 February, “Irrespective of an opinion of the
Canara Bank & Mentioned Court of 2003 Handwriting Expert, the Court can
Ors on 18 India compare the admitted writing with
February, 2003 disputed writing and come to its own
independent conclusion. Such exercise of
comparison is permissible under Section
73 of the Evidence Act.”
“Evidence of Handwriting Expert need
not be invariably corroborated. It is for the
Court to decide whether to accept such an
uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear
that even when experts' evidence is not
there, Court has power to compare the
writings and decide the matter.”
5. S.Gopal Reddy 1996 SCC (4) Supreme 11 July We think it would be extremely hazardous
V/s. State Of 596, JT 1996 Court of 1996 to condemn the appellant merely on the
Andhra Pradesh (6) 268 India 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 mare caution than
the opinion of a 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 has 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 of internal and external evidence.
This Court again pointed out in Ishwari
Prasad Vs. Md. 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 Vs. Subodh
Kumar, 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
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. This Court had
again occasion to consider the evidentiary
value of expert opinion in regard
to handwriting in Fakhruddin Vs. State of
M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a
note of caution pointing out that it would
be risky to found a conviction solely on
the evidence of
a handwriting expert before acting upon
such evidence, the court must always try
to see whether it is corroborated by
other evidence, direct or circumstantial.
6. Ishwari Prasad 1963 AIR Supreme 27 August “Evidence given
Mishra vs 1728, 1963 Court of 1962 by experts of handwriting can never
Mohammad Isa SCR (3) 722 India be conclusive, because it is, after
all, opinion evidence.”
7. State of AIR 1992 SC Supreme 15 July It is well settled that evidence regarding
Maharashtra V/s. 2100, 1992 Court of 1992 the identity of the author of any document
Sukhdev Singh CriLJ 3454, India can be tendered (i) by examining the
alias Sukha 1992 (3) person who is conversant and familiar
Crimes 5 SC, with the handwriting of such person or (ii)
JT 1992 (4) through the testimony of an expert who is
SC 73, 1992 qualified and competent to make a
II OLR SC comparison of the disputed writing and
209, 1992 (2) admitted writing on a scientific basis and
SCALE 9, (iii) by the court comparing the disputed
(1992) 3 SCC document with the admitted one. In the
700, 1992 3 present case the prosecution has resorted
SCR 480 to the second mode by relying on
the opinion evidence of
the handwriting expert PW 120. But since
the science of identification
of handwriting by comparison is not an
infallible one, prudence demands that
before acting on such opinion the Court
should be fully satisfied about the
authorship of the admitted writings which
is made the sole basis for comparison and
the Court should also be fully satisfied
about the competence and credibility of
the handwriting expert. It is indeed true
that by nature and habit, over a period of
time, each individual develops certain
traits which give a distinct character to his
writings making it possible to identify the
author but it must at the same time be
realised that since handwriting experts are
generally engaged by one of the
Contesting parties they, consciously 4 or
unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of
an opinion which is helpful to the party
engaging him. That is why we come
across cases of conflicting opinions given
by two handwriting experts engaged by
opposite parties. It is, therefore, necessary
to exercise extra care and caution in
evaluating their opinion before accepting
the same. So courts have as a rule of
prudence refused to place implicit faith on
the opinion evidence of
a handwriting expert. Normally courts
have A considered it dangerous to base a
conviction solely on the testimony of
a handwriting expert because
such evidence is not regarded
as conclusive, Since
such opinion evidence cannot take the
 place of substantive evidence, courts have,
as a rule of prudence, looked for
corroboration before acting on
such evidence. True it is, there is no rule
of law that the evidence of
a handwriting expert cannot be acted upon
unless substantially corroborated but,
courts have been slow in placing implicit
reliance on sch opinion evidence, without
more, because of the imperfect nature of
the science of identification
of handwriting and its accepted fallibility.
There is no absolute rule of law or even of
prudence which has ripened into a rule of
law that in no case can the court base its
findings solely on the opinion of
a handwriting expert but the imperfect and
frail nature of the science of identification
of the author by comparison of his
admitted handwriting with the disputed
ones has placed a heavy responsibility on
the courts to exercise extra care and
caution before acting on such opinion.
Before a court can place reliance on
the opinion of an expert, it must be shown
that he has not betrayed any bias and the
reasons on which he had based
his opinion are convincing and
satisfactory. It is for this reason that J the
courts are wary to act solely on
the evidence of a handwriting expert that,
however, does not mean that even if there
exist numerous striking peculiarities and
mannerisms which stand out to identify
the writer, the court will not act on
the expert's evidence. In the end it all
depends on the character of
the evidence of the expert and the facts
and circumstances of each case.
8. State of Gujarat 1967 AIR Supreme 5 September The opinion of a handwriting expert is
V/s. Vinaya 778, 1967 Court of 1966 also relevant in view of s. 45 of
Chandra Chhota SCR (1) 249 India the Evidence Act, but that too is not
Lal Patni conclusive. It has also been held that the
sole evidence of a handwriting expert is
not normally sufficient 'or recording a
definite finding about the writing being of
 a certain person or not. It follows that it is
not essential that the handwriting expert
must be examined in a case to prove or
disprove the dis Sup. C1/66-3 puted
writing. It was therefore not right for the
learned Judge to consider it unsafe to rely
upon the evidence of the complainant in a
case like this, i.e., in a case in which no
handwriting expert had been examined in
support of his statement.
9. Alamgir vs. State N/A Supreme 12
(NCT, Delhi) Court of November
India 2002